Mere Delay Is No Ground To Quash Disciplinary Proceedings When Serious Financial Irregularities Are Alleged: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Charge-Sheet For Fraudulent Medical Claims

“In cases involving misuse of public funds and forged documents, it would not be in the interest of clean and honest administration to terminate the proceedings merely on the ground of delay” – MP High Court

In a latest judgement, Madhya Pradesh High Court in Devendra Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Writ Petition No. 272 of 2025) dismissed a writ petition challenging departmental charge-sheets issued against a government employee accused of fraudulently claiming over ₹9.64 lakhs in medical reimbursements. The Court decisively ruled that inordinate delay alone is not a sufficient ground to invalidate disciplinary proceedings, particularly when grave charges involving forged bills and misappropriation of public funds are on record.

The petitioner, a government veterinary field officer, had sought quashing of two charge-sheets dated 27/03/2019 and 12/12/2024, alleging procedural mala fides, double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution, and prejudicial delay.

Fraudulent Reimbursement Allegation Involving Forged Medical Bills

Devendra Sharma, appointed initially as a Bull Attender and later promoted to Assistant Veterinary Field Officer (AVFO) in the Animal Husbandry & Dairying Department, was accused of submitting forged and fabricated medical bills between 2010 and 2015 for medical expenses relating to his wife and himself. An internal inquiry revealed prima facie irregularities, following which a show cause notice was issued in January 2016. While Sharma submitted a reply, no further action ensued for nearly three years.

Later, a charge-sheet dated 27/03/2019 was issued, reiterating the same allegations, followed by another charge-sheet dated 12/12/2024, again restating the same charges of fraudulent withdrawals. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging both, on grounds of excessive delay, double jeopardy, and malice on the part of the department head.

Grave Financial Misconduct Alleged; Court Notes Seriousness of Charges

Rejecting the petitioner’s plea that the delay vitiated the proceedings, the Court underscored that “the allegations made against the petitioner are serious enough and are based upon the documentary evidence”. Notably, the forged medical documents were explicitly denied and disowned by Dr. Puneet Rastogi, HOD of Cardiology, GR Medical College, Gwalior, while Drug Inspectors confirmed the unregistered status of the medical shops from which purchase claims were made. Post-facto approvals from health authorities were also absent.

Justice Ashish Shroti observed:

“There may be cases where the allegations are petty and not serious… However, there are cases like the present one, where not only the public money is at stake but also the integrity and honesty of the delinquent is to be enquired into.”

The Court relied on a long line of Supreme Court precedents, including LIC v. A. Masilamani (2013) and S. Janaki Iyer v. Union of India (2025), to reaffirm that mere delay cannot be the sole basis for quashing disciplinary proceedings, unless the delay causes demonstrable prejudice to the delinquent employee.

Double Jeopardy Argument Rejected – No Prior Punishment or Prosecution

On the issue of double jeopardy under Article 20(2), the petitioner claimed that issuance of the charge-sheets after an earlier show cause notice violated his constitutional protection. The Court dismissed the plea, holding:

“No punishment has yet been imposed upon the petitioner pursuant to the earlier show cause notice or the first charge-sheet. In fact, no enquiry commenced at all under those proceedings. Therefore, the plea of double jeopardy is not available.”

The Court emphasized that Article 20(2) prohibits only multiple prosecutions or punishments, not successive administrative steps like show cause notices or charge-sheets that do not culminate in punishment.

Second Charge-Sheet Supersedes the First; Enquiry to Continue Only Under 2024 Charge-Sheet

The petitioner’s argument that two charge-sheets for the same allegation was impermissible was also addressed by the Court. It noted that after the petitioner replied to the 2019 charge-sheet, no enquiry was initiated or concluded under it. Therefore, the subsequent 2024 charge-sheet was held to supersede the earlier one.

“The issuance of subsequent charge-sheet dated 12/12/2024 only shows that the charge-sheet dated 27/3/2019 is dropped by the respondents and the same is not to be proceeded further.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the respondents to proceed only under the charge-sheet dated 12/12/2024 and not the earlier one.

Mala Fide Allegations Unsupported; Bald Claims of Bias Unsubstantiated

As for the claim of mala fides and bias against the departmental director (Respondent No. 3), the Court found no merit. It held:

“Except a bald averment, no specific allegation or material has been brought on record to support the claim of bias. Vague assertions without concrete proof cannot be the basis to invalidate administrative action.”

Precedents Relied Upon by Petitioner Distinguished On Facts

The petitioner relied on three Madhya Pradesh High Court decisions—Mohinder Singh Kanwar, Suraj Singh Shikarwar, and Dinesh Awasthi—where charge-sheets were quashed due to delay. However, the Court clarified that no universal rule exists to quash charge-sheets purely on account of delay. Each case must be assessed on its own facts and the seriousness of charges.

“These judgments were based on facts and do not establish a blanket rule. The Supreme Court decisions, including Masilamani, clearly uphold that disciplinary proceedings cannot be quashed merely on account of delay if the charges are grave.”

Petition Dismissed, Departmental Enquiry Allowed To Proceed

The Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, permitting the authorities to continue the disciplinary proceedings based on the charge-sheet dated 12/12/2024. However, the Court directed the respondents to conclude the enquiry expeditiously, expressing concern over further delays in departmental action.

“It is expected that the respondents shall conclude the proceedings expeditiously without any further delay. The interim order stands vacated.”

Date of Decision: 24 December 2025