In a significant judgment on service law and disciplinary proceedings, the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the compulsory retirement of a Central Bank of India employee, observing that unauthorized absence by itself does not justify removal from service.

Justice Anand Singh Bhurawat, hearing the matter as a single judge, ruled that before imposing a major penalty such as compulsory retirement, the employer must establish through a departmental inquiry that the employee intentionally and deliberately remained absent from duty. Without such a finding, the punishment cannot stand in law.

Bank Employee Challenged Retirement Order

The petitioner, Karan Khare, a Class IV employee and resident of Lashkar in Gwalior, has been serving with the Central Bank of India since 1998.

The bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against him after alleging that he remained absent from duty without authorization for 586 days. Based on the allegation, the bank issued an order on July 24, 2024, directing his compulsory retirement.

After his departmental appeal and review petition were rejected, Khare approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking relief.

Reasoned Orders Are Mandatory

During the hearing, the High Court emphasized that disciplinary authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers and are therefore required to pass well-reasoned orders based on evidence and established facts.

The court observed that a punishment order must clearly explain why the employee's defence was rejected and how the authority concluded that the misconduct had been proved.

After examining the records, the Bench found that the bank's order did not record any finding that the employee's absence was wilful or deliberate. In the absence of such a conclusion, the punishment of compulsory retirement failed to meet the legal standard required under service jurisprudence.

Medical Records Were Submitted, Court Notes

Khare contended before the court that he had filed a complaint in 2019 alleging caste-based harassment by the then branch manager, following which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.

He also argued that he had been suffering from serious health problems during the period of absence and had submitted medical documents to the bank to explain his condition.

According to the petition, the bank neither conducted an independent medical verification nor properly examined the documents before treating his absence as unauthorized. Instead, it proceeded with disciplinary action without adequately considering his explanation.

Employee Cannot Be Punished Twice for the Same Period

The petitioner further argued that part of the period between 2019 and 2021, which formed the basis of the compulsory retirement order, had already been the subject of an earlier departmental inquiry.

He claimed that he had already received a minor penalty for that portion of the alleged misconduct. Therefore, imposing a second and much harsher punishment for the same period amounted to double punishment and was contrary to established service law principles.

The High Court took note of this submission while examining the fairness of the disciplinary process.

Fair Procedure Is Essential

Setting aside the compulsory retirement order, the High Court reiterated that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, fairness, and procedural compliance.

The court observed that serious penalties affecting an employee's career and livelihood cannot be imposed solely on allegations or assumptions. Authorities must conduct a proper inquiry, evaluate all available evidence, and record clear findings before taking such action.

The judgment reinforces the principle that employers, including public sector institutions, must ensure transparency, reasoned decision-making, and strict adherence to legal procedures while dealing with disciplinary matters.

In a significant ruling reinforcing the principle of equality before the law, the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to entertain a writ appeal filed by the state government after a delay of 951 days. The Division Bench held that the government cannot expect special treatment in matters of limitation and must be held to the same legal standards as any other litigant.

The court emphasized that procedural timelines exist to ensure fairness and certainty in the judicial process. Allowing excessive delays without sufficient justification would undermine the rights that have already accrued to the opposing party.

Government Blamed Former Education Officer

During the hearing, the state government argued that the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period due to the negligence of former District Education Officer Hari Om Chaturvedi.

Government counsel informed the court that the Commissioner of Public Instruction had suspended the concerned officer on May 11, 2026, contending that disciplinary action against the official should be considered while deciding the plea for condonation of delay.

The state requested the court to excuse the delay and permit the appeal to proceed on merits.

Court Rejects Explanation

The High Court was not convinced by the government's justification. The Bench observed that merely initiating disciplinary proceedings against a negligent official cannot erase the legal consequences of prolonged inaction.

The judges stated that if a party has already acquired legal rights because of the government's failure to act within the statutory time limit, those rights cannot be taken away simply because the concerned officer has later been suspended or penalized.

The court reiterated that administrative lapses cannot become a routine ground for condoning extraordinary delays in litigation.

Call for Greater Accountability

The Bench also expressed concern over recurring delays by government departments in pursuing legal matters. It observed that negligence within the administrative machinery often results in avoidable financial losses to the state and unnecessary litigation.

The court stressed that responsibility for such lapses should not end with departmental action alone. It suggested that accountability should be fixed on erring officials, including the possibility of recovering financial losses from those responsible, to discourage similar negligence in the future.

According to the court, such measures would improve efficiency in government functioning and ensure greater respect for judicial timelines.

Approval and File Movement Caused Major Delay

Court records revealed that obtaining approval to file the writ appeal itself took nearly seven and a half months. Even after the necessary sanction was granted in December 2025, the case file reportedly remained pending for another five months before any further action was taken.

The writ appeal was eventually filed before the High Court in May 2026, by which time the total delay had reached 951 days.

Considering the prolonged and inadequately explained delay, the Division Bench refused to condone the lapse and dismissed the application, effectively rejecting the state's writ appeal.

The ruling serves as a reminder that government authorities are expected to exercise the same level of diligence and compliance with statutory deadlines as any private litigant. The judgment also reinforces the judiciary's consistent position that procedural negligence by public officials cannot be used to override the legal rights of other parties.