Delinquent Officer Cannot Oversee His Own Prosecution: MP High Court On PWD Posting

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an order that removed an officer from the additional charge of Chief Engineer, PWD Bridge Zone, Bhopal, and handed the responsibility to another officer who was already facing disciplinary proceedings, holding that the State cannot bypass its own rules and place tainted officers in sensitive positions.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh passed the order while allowing a petition filed by P.C. Verma, who had challenged the April 29, 2026 decision withdrawing his additional charge and assigning it to another senior PWD officer. The Court found the State’s action arbitrary, legally unsustainable and contrary to a 2004 government circular that bars officers facing departmental action from being given higher or additional responsibilities.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Sanjay K. Agarwal, assisted by Advocate Sarthak Nema, argued that the officer who was given the charge was facing multiple disciplinary issues, including allegations relating to a bridge collapse and financial irregularities in a hospital project.

Advocate General Prashant Singh, assisted by Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly, appeared for the State. Advocate Rahul Diwaker appeared for respondent no. 2, Additional Secretary Public Works Department while Additional Advocate General Harpreet Singh Ruprah, assisted by Advocate Akash Malpani, represented respondent no. 4, Officiating Chief Engineer Public Works Department Bhopal Zone.

The Court noted that a show cause notice was issued to Verma on April 29 and, within about three hours, the impugned order stripping him of the additional charge was passed. According to the judgment, such a sequence reflected a pre-determined approach and raised serious concerns regarding fairness in administrative decision-making.

Criticising the State’s conduct, the Court observed that although no employee has a vested right to continue holding an additional charge, administrative powers cannot be exercised in an unfair, arbitrary or mala fide manner. “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,” the Court said.

The Bench was particularly critical of the decision to hand over the charge to an officer against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending. It held that assigning such responsibility to a person who could influence or oversee matters connected to proceedings against him amounted to a colourable exercise of power. The Court remarked that the State had effectively permitted “a delinquent officer to oversee his own prosecution,” describing the situation as a direct violation of the principle that no person should be a judge in his own cause.

Referring to the State government’s circular dated July 22, 2004, the Court emphasised that officers facing departmental inquiries, vigilance recommendations or serious allegations should not be entrusted with temporary or higher charges. The record, the Court said, showed that the officer concerned fell within the restrictions contemplated under the circular.

The judgment also addressed a larger administrative issue. The Court cautioned against the growing practice of handing higher posts to officers who fall outside the statutory zone of consideration for promotion. It observed that giving the charge of senior positions to junior officers could undermine service rules, disrupt departmental hierarchy and create room for favouritism and corruption.

Finding the impugned order vitiated by arbitrariness, malice in law and violation of binding government instructions, the Court set it aside. It directed the State to assign the additional charge of Chief Engineer, Bridge Zone, only to an eligible officer with an unblemished record and within the zone of consideration for promotion. The Court further directed that pending proceedings against respondent no. 4 be concluded independently and that he be kept away from the concerned post until those proceedings are finalised.

The Court also expressed displeasure with the manner in which the Principal Secretary, PWD, responded to earlier directions, observing that a specific personal affidavit had been sought on policy considerations but was not adequately furnished. It warned authorities to strictly follow governing circulars and service rules while making future officiating or additional appointments.

Case Title: P.C. Verma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: June 15, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh