State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"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," High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in a significant ruling, held that the State administration cannot exercise its power to assign additional charges in an arbitrary or malafide manner to accommodate "tainted" officers.

A single-judge bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that while an employee has no indefeasible right to hold an additional charge, the administration is prohibited from using this power to bypass the principles of natural justice or its own binding circulars.

The petitioner, P.C. Verma, a Superintending Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD), challenged an order dated April 29, 2026, which withdrew his additional charge as Chief Engineer (Bridge Zone, Bhopal) and handed it to Respondent No. 4. The petitioner alleged that the transfer happened within three hours of a show-cause notice and was designed to accommodate an officer facing multiple disciplinary actions.

The primary question before the court was whether the State could assign a higher additional charge to an officer facing serious disciplinary inquiries in violation of its 2004 Circular. The court was also called upon to determine whether the swift withdrawal of the petitioner's charge constituted "malice in law" and a violation of the principles of natural justice.

State Cannot Bypass Circular Barring Tainted Officers From Higher Charges

The Court meticulously examined the State Government’s Circular dated July 22, 2004, which explicitly prohibits assigning higher or additional charges to "tainted" officers facing disciplinary action or recommendations from vigilance agencies. The bench noted that the authorities must ensure an officer has a clean disciplinary record before such assignments are made.

The Court found that Respondent No. 4 was facing serious allegations, including the collapse of a bridge in Seoni and financial embezzlement amounting to over Rs. 2.41 Crores in a hospital project. The bench remarked that handing over charge to such an officer was not a mere administrative oversight but an action taken in absolute defiance of explicit prohibitions.

Withdrawal Of Charge Within Three Hours Reflects Predetermined Mind

Regarding the timeline of the petitioner’s removal, the Court noted that a show-cause notice was issued at 17:05 hrs, and the impugned order was issued just three hours later. The Court observed that such a hasty timeline reflects a "predetermined mind" and bypasses the fundamental tenets of natural justice.

The bench held that while the State has administrative flexibility, it cannot use it as an excuse to act unfairly or capriciously. The Court emphasized that such actions, designed to illegally accommodate a specific individual, fall squarely within the doctrine of 'malice in law' as established by the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India.

Nemo Judex In Causa Sua: Delinquent Officer Cannot Oversee Own Prosecution

The Court expressed shock at the fact that Respondent No. 4 was posted in the very office responsible for processing the disciplinary proceedings against him. By doing so, the State effectively allowed the officer to oversee his own prosecution, which the Court termed a direct violation of the maxim Nemo judex in causa sua (no one is a judge in his own cause).

"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."

Backdoor Entry Through Temporary Arrangements Deprecated

The Court further analyzed Rule 6 of the MP PWD Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1983, which sets eligibility criteria for promotions. The bench held that the statutory mechanism for promotion cannot be bypassed through the "backdoor" of temporary arrangements to accommodate junior officers falling outside the zone of consideration.

The bench warned that placing junior officers in positions of immense financial and administrative power far beyond their substantive rank creates grounds for nepotism and rampant corruption. It directed that even temporary charges should generally be restricted to those eligible for regular promotion to preserve hierarchical discipline and institutional integrity.

Court Deprecates Conduct Of Principal Secretary PWD

The Court took a "serious note" of the conduct of the Principal Secretary, PWD, who filed a generic reply instead of the specific personal affidavit directed by the Court. The bench observed that the reply appeared designed to shield Respondent No. 4 rather than answer the Court's queries regarding the violation of state policies.

The Court sternly warned the official not to take judicial orders lightly, noting that the State, as a model employer, is expected to act with transparency. The bench emphasized that assigning sensitive posts to officers with tainted records "shocks the conscience of the Court."

The High Court quashed the impugned order and issued a writ of certiorari, setting aside the removal of the petitioner's charge to accommodate Respondent No. 4. The State was directed to assign the charge to an eligible officer with an unblemished service record who falls within the legitimate zone of consideration, ensuring strict adherence to the 1983 Rules and the 2004 Circular.

Date of Decision: 15 June 2026