“Wilful Disregard Of Official Instructions”: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Penalty On Court Clerk For Withholding Required Case Data

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed, “Conduct of the petitioner was not only insubordinate but reflected wilful disregard of repeated official instructions.”

The Court added, “The High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence, the High Court does not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding.”

Advocate Saket Agarwal appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Shobhitaditya represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner was working as an Executant Clerk in the Court of a Judicial Magistrate. During the maternity leave of the Presiding Officer, the High Court directed urgent submission of statistics regarding cases involving vulnerable groups, to be compiled and sent to the Registry by for use in the Chief Justices’ Conference.

Although the Petitioner sent some information, it was not in the required format. Despite receiving multiple reminders, he failed to send the updated report. The correct format was eventually submitted after he had already been placed under suspension.

A departmental enquiry followed. Five witnesses were examined, including the Additional District Judge and Office Superintendent. The enquiry report found the charge against the Petitioner proved, and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, which was later modified by the appellate authority to remove the cumulative component. The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside both orders.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court noted that the Petitioner had failed to comply with repeated instructions issued by the Registry of the High Court and the District Judge, even after being reminded via email, phone calls, and direct communication from court staff.

The Bench observed, “The petitioner was not obeying the directions of the District Judge… and despite several requests did not forward the information. The District Judge asked other employees to contact the petitioner, but the same was not complied with.”

It further noted that the Petitioner had initially submitted incorrect information and then failed to take steps despite being made aware of the lapse.

The Court noted that the enquiry proceedings were properly conducted, witnesses were examined, and the Petitioner had full opportunity to defend himself. “The findings of the enquiry officer are based on material available on record. The disciplinary authority and appellate authority have applied their mind to the record and passed reasoned orders”, it added.

Rejecting the Petitioner’s defence that he had no intent to violate orders and was simply unaware of the format, the Court held that such justification was untenable in the face of repeated follow-ups. It held, “Conduct of the petitioner was not only insubordinate but reflected wilful disregard of repeated official instructions.”

The Court also clarified the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. The Court held, “The High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence, the High Court does not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding.”

Having found the enquiry process lawful and the findings based on cogent material, the Court noted that the appellate authority had already shown leniency by removing the cumulative effect of the punishment, held that the final penalty was proportionate to the misconduct, and that no further interference was justified.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition

Cause Title: Nand Kishore Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:26126)