K.K. Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8248 MP

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR



WRIT PETITION NO.                                   24471/2021
Parties Name                   K. K. MISHRA

                                              VS.

                               STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                               AND OTHERS
Bench Constituted              Single Bench
Judgment delivered By          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
Whether      approved    for
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For petitioner: Shri D. K. Tripathi, Advocate
                            For respondent/State: Shri Gaurav Tiwari, P.L.

For Respondents 2 & 3 : Shri Anoop Nair, Advocate

(O R D E R ) 04/12/2021

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging charge-

sheet dated 22.2.2020(Annexure P/1), Supplementary

charge-sheet dated 5.11.2020 (Annexure P/2) and charge-

sheet dated 27.3.2021 (Annexure P/3).

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that

impugned charge-sheets were issued by respondent no.3,

Chief General Manager (HR&A) who does not have

jurisdiction to initiate Disciplinary enquiry and issue charge-

sheet against petitioner. Petitioner is working on the post of

Junior Engineer and Additional Chief

Engineer/Superintending Engineer is competent to take

disciplinary action against Class-III employee. Learned

counsel for petitioner placed reliance on judgment in the

case of Tarun Kumar Mishra vs. State of M.P and

others (W.P No.14649/2021) order dated 21.10.2021. It

is submitted that respondent no.3 is neither appointing

authority nor disciplinary authority and, therefore, action of

respondents is in violation of Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. In view of

aforesaid submission, learned counsel for petitioner made

submission for quashing of impugned charge-sheet.

3. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 submitted

that respondent no.3 had issued the charge sheet on basis

of approval given by Managing Director of the company. It

is submitted that even if submission of petitioner is accepted

then also respondent no.3 is an officer superior to Additional

Chief Engineer/Superintending Engineer and, therefore,

respondent no.3 is competent to issue the charge sheet. In

view of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for

respondents made a prayer for dismissal of writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Respondent nos.2 & 3 had filed Annexures R/3 & 6 by

which note-sheet of respondent/department is placed on

record. From perusal of note sheet, it is found that

departmental inquiry was initiated after opinion is formed by

General Manager (Administration) and approval by Chief

General Manager (Administration) and Chief General

Manager (HR&A). Petitioner has placed document i.e. order

No.AS/PK/AdO/9838 dated 24.1.2013 on record. By said

order delegation of power was revised. As per revised

delegation of power in Part-B Section-II, power of

appointment on the post of Class-III and Class-IV employees

is delegated to Regional Chief Engineer/Chief

Engineer/Superintending Engineer and as per Part B Section-

IV, Disciplinary Authority for imposing penalties on

subordinate staff is delegated to Chief Engineer. In respect

of subordinate staff under the jurisdiction of and drawing

staff of central office is Secretary/Additional

Secretary/Additional Director/Joint Secretary/Joint

Director/Additional Chief Engineer/Superintending

Engineer/E.E. and Senior Accounts Officer with Full powers in

respect of staff he is empowered to appoint.

6. Considering the aforesaid office order dated 24.1.2013,

petitioner who is Junior Engineer is Class-III employee and

power is delegated to Regional Chief Engineer/Chief

Engineer and Superintending Engineer for making

appointment on basis of recommendation of selection

committee. Respondents in its reply had stated that Chief

General Manager (HR&A) is officer superior to that of

Additional Chief Engineer/Superintending Engineer.

7. In view of aforesaid averments made by petitioner that

Chief General Manager (HR&A) is not competent authority to

initiate disciplinary action and draw charges against

petitioner is correct.

8. In view of same, impugned charge-sheets and

supplementary charge sheets issued against petitioner are

quashed. Respondents are at liberty to initiate disciplinary

action against petitioner and issue charge-sheet by an

officer who is competent to take such action, if they feel it

appropriate.

9. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is

disposed of.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE mms

Digitally signed by MONSI M SIMON Date: 2021.12.07 17:21:18 +05'30'