The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside an order withholding 50 per cent of a government employee’s pension, ruling that the disciplinary authority failed to properly consider his defence before imposing the penalty.
Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat was hearing the employee’s challenge to the disciplinary authority’s order dated 15 October, 2025, as well as a subsequent appellate order that upheld the punishment. The penalty had been imposed after a departmental inquiry found the charges against him proved.
The employee had submitted a detailed 17-page response to the chargesheet and inquiry report on 5 August, 2025. However, the court found that the disciplinary authority’s final order did not demonstrate that the grounds raised in this response had been examined before the penalty was imposed.
The employee subsequently appealed against the punishment. The appellate authority rejected the appeal on 5 June. The state defended both orders, arguing that the charges had been established during the departmental inquiry and that the appellate authority had examined the relevant records before confirming the punishment.
The High Court, however, held that a disciplinary authority exercising quasi-judicial powers must independently apply its mind to the employee’s defence and provide clear reasons for its decision. A punishment order that does not explain why the employee’s submissions were rejected cannot be treated as a reasoned or speaking order.
The court also rejected the argument that any deficiency in the original order could be corrected through the appellate order. It held that reasons must form part of the original decision-making process and cannot subsequently be supplied to cure the defect.
The High Court, therefore, quashed both the punishment and appellate orders. It directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider the employee’s reply and issue a fresh, reasoned order after properly examining his submissions.
