Allowing Officer To Oversee Department Handling Disciplinary Proceedings Against Him Is Impermissible: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that permitting a delinquent officer to hold charge of the very department responsible for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him is legally impermissible and contrary to principles of natural justice. 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 211

The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh strongly criticised the State, remarking that the decision "shocks the conscience" of the court. 

"The decision to assign second additional charge to respondent No. 4 shocks the conscience of this Court. It is an admitted fact on record that there existsinstructions for preparing draft charge sheets against respondent No. 4 for his active involvement in the collapse of a bridge at Seoni. By handing over such additional charge and posting respondent No. 4 in the very office responsible for processing the disciplinary proceedings, the State has effectively permitted a delinquent officer to oversee his own prosecution. This is the very definition of a colourable exercise of power and a direct violation of the maxim Nemo judex in causa sua (no one is a judge in his own cause)". 

The dispute arose after the State Government issued an order on April 29, 2026, withdrawing the petitioner's additional charge as Chief Engineer, PWD Bridge Zone of Bhopal and assigning the responsibility to respondent no 4 (delinquent officer), who was already holding an additional charge as Chief Engineer, PWD Bhopal Zone. 

The petitioner, a senior PWD officer, was appointed in 1992 and was promoted through various ranks over the years. He challenged the circular on the ground that it violated the State Government circular of July 22, 2004, which prohibited assignment of higher or additional charges to delinquent officers. 

During the proceedings, the petitioner submitted documents showing that the bridge failure alleged caused a loss of ₹494.22 Lakhs to the State exchequer. The petitioner also relied on records relating to a 1,000-bed hospital project in Gwalior, where financial irregularities amounting to ₹2.41 crore had been examined by departmental authorities. 

The court noted that the communications of January 13 and 16, 2025, directed the preparation of a draft chargesheet against the delinquent officer in relation to the bridge collapse matter. It further recorded that the State itself had admitted in its pleadings that disciplinary proceedings concerning the Seoni bridge incident remained pending. 

While the State argued that an employee possessed a vested right to hold an additional charge and justified withdrawal based on alleged irregularities by the petition in tender evaluation, the court found the circumstances surrounding the decision troubling. 

The bench noted that the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and within merely three hours, his additional charge was handed over to a delinquent officer. 

The court held, "The timeline in the present case where a show cause notice is issued and the petitioner is divested of his charge within three hours reflects a predetermined mind and bypasses the fundamental tenets of natural justice". 

Examining the 2004 circular, the court held that officers facing departmental enquiries, vigilance recommendations, criminal prosecution, or finding of serious irregularities could not be entrusted with a temporary or additional charge of a higher post. 

The court emphasized, "The documents placed on record viz. Annexures P-10, P-11, P-12 and P-13 demonstrate that respondent No. 4 has been found prima facie guilty in preliminary investigations concerning serious irregularities, including severe infrastructural failures leading to loss of public money and financial embezzlement of Rs. 2,41,76,008/-. Furthermore, he is actively facing ongoing disciplinary actions, including the issuance of a formal charge sheet which is evident from paragraph no. 29 of the Reply filed by respondent State. Consequently, the decision to hand over the additional charge of Chief Engineer to an officer possessing such a tainted record is not merely an administrative oversight but an action taken in absolute defiance of the explicit prohibition laid down in the Circular". 

Further, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Principal Secretary of PWD, who, despite specific directions requiring a personal affidavit explaining the policy basis for the impugned order, filed a general reply instead. The court noted that the response appeared designed to shield the delinquent officer rather than address the issue raised by the court. 

Relying on the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department Engineer-In-Chief and Chief Engineers Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, the court held that although temporary arrangements were administratively permissible, they could not be used to bypass statutory eligibility requirements or favour junior officers who were not otherwise eligible for promotion. 

Thus, the bench quashed the order of April 29, 2026 and directed the PWD to assign the additional charge to another eligible officer possessing an unblemished service record. 

Case Title: PC Verma v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-16652-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 211

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sanjay K Agarwal with Advocate Sarthak Nema

For State: Advocate General Prashant Singh with Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly

For PWD: Advocate Rahul Diwaker

For Delinquent Officer: Additional Advocate General Harpreet Singh Ruprah with Advocate Akash Malpani 

Click here to read/download the Order