Ku. Madhuwala Marko vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1232 MP

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR



WRIT PETITION NO.                                5720/2018
Parties Name                   KU. MADHUWALA MARKO
                                         VS.
                               STATE OF M.P.
                               AND OTHERS
Bench Constituted              Single Bench
Judgment delivered By          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
Whether       approved   for YES/NO
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For petitioner: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

                               For Respondents : Anuj Shrivastava, PL

Law laid down Significant paragraph number

(O R D E R ) 05/04/2021

Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order dated

16.10.2017 contained in Annexure P/7 and order dated 16.2.2018

contained in Annexure P/8.

2. Petitioner was working as Assistant Grade-III. On 5.3.2016

charge-sheet was issued to petitioner. Vide order dated

20.1.2016 petitioner was ordered to work in Audit Branch.

Petitioner did not join in the Audit Branch in violation of order

dated 20.1.2016. Said act of petitioner amounts to misconduct

under Rule 3 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,

1965. In Departmental inquiry witnesses namely; Smt.

Annpoorna Dhangar and Hanumatmani Tiwari were examined

and cross-examined. On basis of oral and documentary

evidence, Inquiry Officer found delinquent employee guilty of

misconduct. Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of censor

on petitioner and on the basis of medical certificate for the period

between 4.2.2016 to 14.3.2016 (40 days) was treated to be

Commuted leave and was sanctioned as Commuted Leave.

Petitioner being aggrieved by order of Disciplinary Authority

preferred an appeal before District Forest Officer/Appellate

Authority. District Forest Officer/Appellate Authority vide its order

dated 16.2.2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

3. Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition

challenging the aforesaid orders on the ground that penalty of

censor is exfacie arbitrary and illegal. There is no evidence

available on record to show that petitioner committed

disobedience of the order of her superior.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and no show-

cause notice was issued before imposing penalty of censor.

5. Respondents had filed their reply and stated therein that

copy of inquiry report was supplied to petitioner on 1.8.2007 and

response of petitioner was called. Petitioner has filed letter dated

1.8.2017, Annexure P/6 which shows that enquiry report was

served upon petitioner and petitioner was asked to prefer her

representation against the said enquiry report. Order was passed

by Disciplinary Authority after considering entire facts of the case

and giving proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Appellate

Authority also gave an opportunity of hearing to petitioner and

after considering the entire case has dismissed the appeal. There

is no illegality or perversity in the order of Disciplinary Authority

and Appellate Authority and in this view prayer was made for

dismissal of writ petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

pleadings.

7. As per Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules of 1966, no order imposing any of the

penalties specified in Clauses 5 to 9 of Rule 10, shall be made

except after an enquiry is held as far as maybe in the manner

provided under Rules 14 and 15. Penalties specified under

Clauses 5 to 9 in Rule 10, includes major penalties. For imposing

minor penalties Rule 16 of Rules of 1966, is to be followed. For

imposing minor penalties specified in Clauses 1 to 4 of Rules 10

and 11, Government servant shall be informed in writing of the

proposal for taking action against her and of imputation of

misconduct or misbehaviour. Reasonable opportunity of making

representation shall be given. Disciplinary Authority may also

hold enquiry if it is of the opinion that enquiry is necessary. Rule

16 of the Rules of 1966 is as under:-

"16. PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING MINOR PENALTIES: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to

(iv) of rule 10 and rule 11 shall be made except after-

(a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;

(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-

rules (3) to (23) of rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;

(c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration;

(d) recording a finding on each imputation or misconduct or misbehaviour.

(e) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary.

(1-a) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule, to withhold increments of pay of Stagnation Allowance and such withholding of increments of pay or Stagnation Allowance is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to withhold increments of pay or of Stagnation Allowance for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay or of Stagnation Allowance with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty.

(2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include-

(i) a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him;

(ii) a copy of the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him;

(iii) his representation, if any;

(iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry;

(v)     the advice of the Commission, if any;
(vi)    the findings on each imputation of misconduct or
        misbehaviour; and

(vii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor."

8. From a perusal of the documents it is found that petitioner

was suspended on 6.2.2016. Enquiry was conducted under Rule

14 of the Rules of 1966. Petitioner was given proper opportunity

of hearing in enquiry. Inquiry Officer has given a finding that

petitioner is not guilty of misconduct, indiscipline and disobeying

the orders of seniors. However Disciplinary Authority has issued a

show-cause notice to petitioner and called for her representation

and explanation. Petitioner has filed an application before the

authority and stated therein that she does not want to file any

representation against the findings in enquiry. Thereafter

Disciplinary Authority has considered the report of Inquiry Officer

and imposed a penalty of censor contrary to the findings of

Inquiry Officer.

9. It is within the jurisdiction of Disciplinary Authority to

consider the inquiry report and come to its own conclusion.

Disciplinary Authority has considered the inquiry report and has

passed the order of imposing penalty of censor considering the

facts and circumstances of the case. Disciplinary Authority has

issued show cause notice to petitioner. Disciplinary Authority has

arrived at conclusion on basis of facts available on record.

Findings of enquiry officer is not binding on disciplinary authority.

If there is some legal evidence on which findings can be based

then disciplinary authority is within its competence to draw its

own conclusion and pass order.

10. In view of the same, no illegality is found in the orders

passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority.

Petitioner was given a show cause notice. She was asked to

present her representation and only thereafter final order has

been passed by Disciplinary Authority. There is no error of

jurisdiction or procedural error in the order passed by the

Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority.

11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case, writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE mms

Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2021.04.09 17:41:49 +05'30'