Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Ahirwar vs M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran ... on 23 October, 2021
Author: Sheel Nagu
WP. No. 21501/2021
-1-
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
WP. No.21501/2021
(DINESH AHIRWAR VS. M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. AND
OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated: 23/10/2021
Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
None for the respondents.
Heard on admission.
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the petitioner prays for following reliefs:-
(a) That, the Hon'ble High Court shall be pleased to call for
the entire original record of lis for its perusal.
(b) That, the Hon'ble High Court shall be pleased to issue
suitable writ or direction to quash the impugned inquiry report
dated 13.09.2021 vide Annexure P-14.
(c) That, the Hon'ble High Court shall be pleased to issue
suitable writ or direction to quash the impugned show cause
notice dated 13.12.2019 vide Annexure P-1.
(d) Cost of this petition be also awarded in favour of the
petitioner.
Any other relief deemed fit and proper looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.
The grievance of the petitioner is against the Inquiry
report dated 13.09.2021 (Annexure P/14), which is inculpatory
in nature by which the charges alleged against petitioner in the
disciplinary proceeding initiated by charge sheet dated
21.01.2020 (Annexure P/3) have been found proved and the
said report has been submitted before the Disciplinary
Authority, who in turn has forwarded a copy of the same to the
petitioner.
Pertinently, the final order of exoneration or penalty has
not yet been passed and, therefore, this petition has been filed
during interregnum stage of the disciplinary proceeding.
WP. No. 21501/2021
Looking to the limited scope of interference while
exercising the power of judicial review during pending
disciplinary proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner
Shri Manoj Sharma has restricted his arguments to the ground
of violation of mandatory provision of Rule 14(18) of M.P.
Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1966 (for brevity "Rules of
1966"). Reliance is placed in this regard on the judgment of
Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. K.A. Kittu &
Others reported in (2001) 1 SCC 65.
In view of above, it would be appropriate to reproduce
Rule 14(18) of Rules of 1966 which reads as under:-
"14(18). The inquiring authority may, after the
Government servant closes his case, and, shall, if
the Government servant has not examined himself,
generally question him on the circumstances
appearing against him in the evidence for the
purpose of enabling the Government servant to
explain any circumstances appearing in the
evidence against him."
Before testing the attending factual matrix in the
instant case on the anvil of aforesaid provision, it is
pertinent to deal with the submission of learned counsel
for petitioner that delinquent employee/petitioner has not
examined himself as a witness and, therefore, it was
incumbent upon the inquiry authority to put questions on
the circumstances appearing against the delinquent
employee/petitioner in the evidence to enable the
delinquent employee to explain any circumstance
appearing in the evidence against him.
The record reveals (in particular order sheet dated
08.04.2021 of the disciplinary proceeding) that after the
defence case was closed by the Defence Assistant, the
Inquiry Officer asked the delinquent employee/petitioner
as to whether he would like to examine himself as a
witness or not. The petitioner declined. Thereafter, four
WP. No. 21501/2021
questions were put by Inquiry Officer to which the
delinquent employee/petitioner responded.
In view of above, it cannot be said that there is a
complete breach of mandatory provision under Rule
14(18) of Rules, 1966. The Inquiry Officer has discharged
his duty cast upon him by the said provision of
questioning the delinquent employee/petitioner as regards
circumstances appearing in the evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits
that the nature of questions put to the delinquent
employee/petitioner do not satisfy the object behind Rule
14(18) of Rules,1966, which is to enable the delinquent
employee/petitioner to explain the circumstances
appearing in the evidence.
The aforesaid objection of learned counsel for the
petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, is of no
avail to the petitioner. The statutory duty cast upon the
Inquiry Officer under Rule 14(18) of Rules, 1966 and the
corresponding right available to the delinquent employee
is though ostensively couched in mandatory language
which revealed by the use of expression 'shall'; but, the
use of 'shall' does not always make a provision mandatory
in nature.
In a disciplinary proceedings fundamental
requirement is affording of reasonable opportunity to the
delinquent employee before the charges are found to be
proved. The relevant disciplinary rules applicable to a
particular service to which the delinquent employee
belongs provide for various steps for affording of
reasonable opportunity. One such stage is the questioning
of delinquent employee after closure of evidence. Even, if
the Inquiry Officer does not put questions to the
WP. No. 21501/2021
delinquent employee to enable him to explain the
circumstances which have appeared in the evidence, the
inquiry proceeding do not get vitiated. This procedural
lapse on the part of Inquiry Officer of non asking of
evidence cannot be termed to be fatal to the disciplinary
proceeding. The reason is not far to see. Even, if the
delinquent employee is not generally questioned on the
circumstances appearing against him as per Rule 14(18) of
Rules, 1966, the delinquent employee is entitled to file
written brief of his case in which the delinquent employee
gets another opportunity to bringforth his explanation in
regard to the circumstances appearing in the evidence
collected against him in the inquiry.
However, the instant case is not a case where
questions have not been put to the delinquent employee
under Rule 14(18) of Rules, 1966; but, the objection of
learned counsel for the petitioner is in regard to nature of
questions put. Thus, no occasion arises for vitiation of
disciplinary proceedings merely on account of irrelevant
questions asked by Inquiry Officer since the delinquent
employee/petitioner can very well avail the benefit of
filing the written brief under Rule 14(18) of Rules, 1966.
There is another reason for taking the aforesaid view.
The disciplinary proceedings by the it's very nature and
the object it seeks to achieve, deserve to be concluded as
expeditiously as possible without unnecessary delay. The
early conclusion of disciplinary proceeding is not only in
the interest of delinquent employee; but, also in the
interest of administration. The misconduct, as alleged,
needs to be either proved or disproved so that the
punishment or exoneration is pronounced and the
delinquent employee knows his fate and corresponding
WP. No. 21501/2021
probity is maintained in administration. Thus, any judicial
interference at the interregnum stage of disciplinary
inquiry is always frowned upon by all the Courts of Law.
The decision of K.A. Kittu (supra) relied upon by the
petitioner does not lay down the law in respect of a
pending disciplinary inquiry; but, was a case where the
punishment of reduction of 50% pension imposed after the
retirement of delinquent employee therein was put to
questions. Thus, the decision of K.A. Kittu (supra) does
not help the petitioner.
In view of above discussion, this Court declines
interference. Accordingly, the present petition stands
dismissed without cost.
(Sheel Nagu)
Judge
mohsin
Digitally signed by YOGESH
KUMAR SHIRVASTAVA
Date: 2021.10.28 18:57:50 +05'30'
