MP High Court: Officers Facing Departmental Proceedings Cannot Be Given Sensitive PWD Posts

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that government officers facing disciplinary proceedings cannot be entrusted with sensitive or higher responsibilities in violation of established government rules. The Court set aside a Public Works Department (PWD) order that transferred the additional charge of Chief Engineer, Bridge Zone, Bhopal, to an officer against whom departmental proceedings were already pending.

The case was filed by P.C. Verma, who challenged a government order removing him from the additional charge and assigning the position to another senior PWD officer. Verma argued that the officer selected for the post was facing serious allegations, including matters related to a bridge collapse and financial irregularities.

While hearing the matter, the High Court noted that a show-cause notice was issued to Verma and, within a few hours, the government passed the order removing him from the post. The Court observed that such haste suggested a pre-decided approach and raised concerns about fairness in administrative decision-making.

The Court clarified that although no employee has a legal right to continue holding an additional charge, government authorities must exercise their powers fairly, reasonably and in accordance with established rules. Administrative decisions cannot be arbitrary or influenced by improper considerations.

A major concern for the Court was the decision to place a sensitive position in the hands of an officer who was himself facing disciplinary proceedings. The Court remarked that such an arrangement would effectively allow a person facing allegations to influence matters connected to those very proceedings. It observed that this would violate the fundamental principle that no person should act as a judge in his own cause.

Referring to a 2004 government circular, the Court highlighted that officers facing departmental inquiries or vigilance-related issues should not be given temporary or higher responsibilities. Since the officer concerned fell within those restrictions, the government’s decision was found to be contrary to its own policy.

The High Court ultimately quashed the order and directed the State to appoint an eligible officer with a clean service record to the post. It also directed that the disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officer be completed independently and that he should not be assigned the post until those proceedings are concluded. The judgment reinforces the principle that public administration must remain transparent, impartial and free from conflicts of interest.