Madhya Pradesh High Court restores government employee’s 50% pension

Justice Bahrawat noted that it is a settled position of law that when a discretion is vested in an authority to exercise a particular power, the same must be exercised with due diligence and reasonably and rationally.

Man challenged 50 per cent pension withholding

A man approached the court challenging a disciplinary authority’s order dated October 15, 2025, which imposed the punishment of withholding 50 per cent of his pension under the applicable service and pension rules. The punishment followed a departmental inquiry in which the charges against him were held proved.

Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat heard the matter on August 18.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Sharma argued that although the petitioner had submitted a detailed 17-page reply to the chargesheet and inquiry report on August 5, 2025, the disciplinary authority failed to consider any of his grounds before imposing the major penalty. The appellate authority also rejected his subsequent appeal on June 5.

He therefore filed a petition seeking quashing of both the punishment order and the appellate order.
Appearing for the state, government advocate Dharmendra Nayak submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of punishment, as the charges were found proved against the petitioner.

He submitted that after considering the charges, the petitioner was found guilty in the departmental enquiry, and the disciplinary authority rightly imposed the punishment.

It was further submitted that the appellate authority also examined the entire record and, upon perusal of the material, affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. Hence, after proper adjudication of the matter by the appellate authority, nothing remains to be interfered with in the present matter and the petition, being devoid of substance, deserves to be dismissed.

Disciplinary authority must apply its mind: Order

The court observed that a disciplinary authority exercising quasi-judicial powers must pass a speaking and reasoned order, applying its mind to the entire facts and circumstances of the case. “The disciplinary authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reasons in support of its conclusion,” it stated.

The court found that the October 15, 2025 punishment order was not a speaking order and did not show that the petitioner’s defence had been properly considered.

The court held that reasons are an essential component of fair decision-making, as they demonstrate that relevant factors were objectively considered and help maintain confidence in the justice system.

The court said that the absence of reasons in the original punishment order cannot be cured by giving reasons in the appellate order. It also emphasised that a plea cannot be treated as a substitute for following fundamental procedural requirements at the initial stage.