R.K.Sinha vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 5497 MP

                                                                        1
                                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                                     BEFORE
                                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
                                                               ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2022

                                                         WRIT PETITION No. 18152 of 2020

                                             Between:-
                                             R.K.SINHA S/O SHRI RAMCHANDRA PRATAP
                                             SINHA , AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                             SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KUSMI, DISTRICT
                                             SIDHI (M.P.) R/O PRESENTLY POSTED AS SUB
                                             DIVISIONA OFFICER LKUSMI, DISTRICT SIDHI
                                             (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                                             (BY SHRI D.K. DIXIT AND SHRI RAKESH DWIVEDI, LEARNED
                                             COUNSEL)

                                             AND

                                     1.      THE STATE OF M.P. THR. ITS PRINCIPAL
                                             SECRETARY   VALLABH BHAWAN   BHOPAL
                                             (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                     2.      UNDER SECRETARY (PERSONNEL) GENERAL
                                             ADMINISTRATION    DEPARTMENT VALLABH
                                             BHAWAN,   MANTRALAYA,  BHOPAL  (M.P.)
                                             (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                     3.      COMMISSIONER M ORENA CHAMBAL DIVISION,
                                             MORENA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                                             (BY SHRI AKSHAY PAWAR, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER)

                                           This petition coming on for admission and interim relief this day, the court
                                     passed the following:
                                                                         ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2017 (Annexure-P/4) passed by the respondent No.3 and order dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure-P/7) passed in appeal by the respondent No.2. The above two judgments have been challenged by the petitioner, who by the impugned order was punished with a minor penalty of withholding two increments with noncumulative effect, which has been

Signature Not Verified SAN discussed by the respondent No.2 by a non speaking order and without Digitally signed by POONAM MANEKAR Date: 2022.04.21 10:27:31 IST affording adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeal against that

order has also been dismissed, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in O.K. Bhardwaj vs Union of India and others (2001) 9

SCC 180 where the Supreme Court held that even where the punishment imposed is on withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect, the same even though a minor penalty, a departmental enquiry would be necessitated where charges being factual are denied by the delinquent employee. It further held that this is the minimum requirement of principle of natural justice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to annexure-P/1, which is a show-cause notice issued to the petitioner on the charge that in violation of the roster, the petitioner carried out inspection of offices which he was not authorized to do. His explanation was called for and by annexure-P/2, the petitioner gave an elaborate explanation/reply to the show-cause notice issued to him, wherein he denied all the factual aspects of the charge. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.06.2017, the first impugned order was passed whereby two increments of the petitioner with noncumulative effect were imposed upon him by a brief perfunctory order. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 and the appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2020 in which, several other allegations/charges were levelled against the petitioner which were conspicuous by their absence in the show-cause notice given to the petitioner on 15.05.2017 (Annexure-P/1).

Learned Government Advocate for the State, on the other hand, has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Signature Not Verified SAN

No.761/2020 (Ratan Singh Silawat Vs. The State of M.P. & Others) Digitally signed by POONAM MANEKAR Date: 2022.04.21 10:27:31 IST

whereby a bunch of several cases were disposed of by a common order.

Learned Government Advocate for the State has submitted that the said judgment of the learned Division Bench had examined the ambit and scope of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs Union of India and had interpreted the same and that this Court was bound by the interpretation arrived at by the learned Division Bench.

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the

attention of this Court to paragraph No.3.4 (a), the Division Bench opined that the often stated position of the Bar with regard of O.K. Bhardwaj's case that even the charge-sheet is for minor punishment and the delinquent employee denies the charges which are factual in nature, then it is incumbent upon disciplinary authority to conduct a full-fledged enquiry u/R.14 of the 1966 Rules failing which the order of punishment is vitiated in law. This contention, the learned Division Bench in paragraph No.3.4

(b) held is fallacious. It further held that the decision of O.K. Bharadwaj (S) was a case arose out of a judgment of Delhi High Court where the High court while dismissing the petition of the employee held that withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect was a minor penalty under the relevant rules and the need for a full-fledged enquiry gets obviated. That order of the Delhi High Court was set-aside by the Supreme Court. The Division Bench was the opinion that the members of the Bar, while relying upon the judgment of O.K. Bharadwaj (S) missed the crucial aspects which is that the said case related to penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative effect.

Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to paragraph No.3.5 (a) of the said judgment and argued that the said Signature Not Verified SAN judgment is actually in his favour. In paragraph No.3.5 (a) the Division Digitally signed by POONAM MANEKAR Date: 2022.04.21 10:27:31 IST Bench held that considering all the earlier decisions of the Apex court the

single bench of this court in Ashok Kumar Sharma was of the view that once the statute (Rule 16) confers discretion upon the disciplinary authority to dispense with full-fledged enquiry while imposing minor penalty then the said discretion which is statutorily provided cannot be taken away by judicial order merely by saying that the charges are serious and involve complicated facts. The court held that this discretion is rightly vested with the disciplinary authority with the rider that discretion is to be judicially exercised for reasons to be recorded in writing, either in the note-sheet to be produced as and when required by the court or communicated to the delinquent employee by mentioning the same in the penalty order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this particular case no such reason is recorded by the authorities as to why a full-fledged enquiry should not be resorted to specially in the circumstance where the petitioner in his reply has denied all the charges against him.

Under the circumstances, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in O.K. Bharadwaj (S), the petition is allowed. The impugned order is in violation of O.K. Bhardwaj vs Union of India and others (2001) 9 SCC 180, as the impugned order does not record any reason for the necessity to dispense with a full-fledged enquiry against the petitioner in the light of his elaborate reply to the charge.

Under the circumstances, this petition succeeds and the impugned orders are quashed. However, the respondents are given the liberty to re- initiate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law, if required.

Signature Not Verified
  SAN                                                                                     (ATUL SREEDHARAN)
                                                                                                 JUDGE
Digitally signed by POONAM MANEKAR   pnm
Date: 2022.04.21 10:27:31 IST