Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Penalty Against District Court Clerk For Delay In Relaying Important Information Requested By HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Thursday (June 19), upheld a disciplinary action initiated against an Executant Clerk, serving in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, for causing undue delay in relaying essential information requested by the High Court.

The disciplinary proceedings stemmed from an incident that occurred in June 2016, when the petitioner was required to submit quarterly data on cases concerning offences against women, children, the disabled, and other vulnerable sections for the period from April 01 to June 30, 2016. Though the petitioner sent the data on July 02, 2016, he later realised on July 05, 2016, that the information needed to be submitted in a specific format (Format B), which he had not used. After consulting his colleagues, he secured approval from the In-charge Judicial Officer and submitted the revised report on June 06, 2016, via email, WhatsApp, and in person.

The petitioner was suspended for the delay in forwarding the data, which was required for presentation before the Chief Justice in a conference. A departmental enquiry ensued, during which he was charged with misconduct for failure to submit the requisite information in time. He was afforded a full opportunity to respond, cross-examine witnesses, and present his case. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty, and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty. The appellate authority later modified it. 

The petitioner then approached the High Court challenging the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. This order partly allowed his departmental appeal by modifying the penalty earlier imposed by the disciplinary authority. Initially, the penalty involved withholding of two increments with a cumulative effect, which was later reduced to withholding of increments without a cumulative effect.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf refused to interfere with the penalty order, noting that "the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, wherein he considered the entire evidence and found proved the charges against the petitioner, are not erroneous. The findings have been recorded on the basis of material available on record and the same cannot be subject matter of judicial review". 

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Saket Agrawal, contended that the allegations did not amount to misconduct under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. It was argued that the delay occurred due to the unfamiliarity of the petitioner with the format B and thus must be viewed as a case of negligence rather than misconduct. 

The court, however, rejected this submission, noting that despite repeated instructions from the District Judge's office, the petitioner failed to submit the required data in the prescribed format within the stipulated time. The bench held that the "allegations against the petitioner was of non supplying the required information despite repetitive demand from the office of District Judge, which cannot be considered as mere negligence or lack of ability". 

The respondents, represented by Advocate Shobhitaditya, argued that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to present his defence. It was also submitted that the enquiry was conducted in adherence to the principles of natural justice. It was further argued that the inquiry and disciplinary action were supported by sufficient evidence. 

The bench observed that the findings of the Enquiry officer were based on a detailed evaluation of the evidence and did not suffer from any illegality. It was further noted that the observations, along with the facts, were also reassessed by the appellate authority. Thus, the bench found no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 

Relying on the case of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma v State of M.P., [2016 (1) MPLJ 537], the bench reiterated "once enquiry has been properly conducted in accordance with the rules, no prejudice has been caused to the delinquent and there is no violation of principles of natural justice and under these circumstances, power of judicial review cannot be exercised and no interference can be made in the matter". Thus, the court dismissed the petition. 

For Petitioner: Advocate Saket Agrawal

For Respondent: Advocate Shobhitaditya

Case Title: Nand Kishore Choudhary v High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2025:MPHC-JBP:26126)

Click here to read the Judgment