‘Government departments lethargic’: Madhya Pradesh High Court denies relief to public official in fraud case

Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior bench) recently slammed government departments for their “lethargic attitude” and “inaction” that delay departmental proceedings against errant officials while denying relief to a public officer facing action on charges of fraud through forged documents.

Justice Ashish Shroti was hearing a plea filed by an assistant veterinary field officer, who was working in the Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, who sought directions to restrain the authorities from proceeding with disciplinary action in relation to the allegations against him.

“It is common knowledge that in the Govt departments, the proceedings are delayed because of various reasons. Most of the time, it is because of the lethargic attitude and inaction on the part of responsible officers. Many times, it is because of the influence that may have been exercised by the delinquent. Nobody personally loses anything because of such a delay. However, ultimately, it is the public money and/or public interest that is to be taken into account,” the order stated.

Justice Ashish Shroti said that delays in proceedings in government departments often occur due to the influence that may have been exercised by the delinquent employee. (Image enhanced using AI)

Sharma was challenging two departmental chargesheets issued by the animal husbandry department in 2019 and 2024, in which he was accused of fraudulently claiming medical reimbursement for himself and his wife by submitting forged and fabricated medical bills.

He called the chargesheets “illegal and arbitrary”, primarily on the grounds of inordinate delay and alleged double jeopardy.

Noting that the allegations against the petitioner were “serious” and supported by “documentary evidence”, the court found that there was an alleged total defalcation of Rs 9.64 lakh.

The high court, in its December 24, 2025 order, dismissed the writ petition and held that the authorities were at liberty to proceed further with the 2024 chargesheet, while directing that the disciplinary proceedings be concluded expeditiously and without further delay.

Justice Shroti clarified there may be cases involving petty or trivial allegations where initiating a probe after a long lapse of time may not be justified, but emphasised that such reasoning cannot apply where the allegations are “serious in nature”.

The court pointed out the present case as one where not only the public money is at “stake”, but also the “integrity and honesty” of the delinquent is to be enquired into and found that all the aspects need to be considered while deciding the quashing of the chargesheet on grounds of delay.

“In the facts and circumstances of this case, it would not be in the interest of clean and honest administration that the charge-sheet is quashed at this stage merely on the ground of delay,” the order read.

Responding to the ground of double jeopardy for quashing the chargesheet, the court highlighted that this doctrine is invoked under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and found that the argument of the petitioner’s counsel has “no legs to stand”.

Article 20(2) of the Constitution provides that “no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once”.

The court held that what is prohibited under Article 20(2) is multiple prosecution or punishment for the same offence, and noted that no punishment had yet been imposed on the petitioner, nor had any enquiry commenced pursuant to the earlier charge-sheets or the show cause notice.

Therefore, the court did not find the argument alleging double jeopardy to be available for the petitioner.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate D P Singh argued that the chargesheets are liable to be quashed on the ground of “inordinate unexplained” delay.

Singh argued that the allegations against his client in the chargesheets related to the 2010-2011 and 2014-2015, whereas the chargesheets were issued only in 2019 and 2024 without any explanation for the delay.

He also pointed out that the showcause notice, along with the issuance of subsequent chargesheets for the same set of allegations, amounts to double jeopardy.

Government counsel K S Tomar, on the contrary, submitted that there was no inaction on the part of the authority concerned and the showcause notice and chargesheets were issued to the petitioner from time to time.

Tomar further argued that the chargesheets couldn’t be quashed only on the ground of delay in issuance, particularly when the allegations made against the petitioner are “serious in nature”.