Madhya Pradesh High Court
B.P. Chakrawarti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
W.P. No. 21038/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 22nd OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 21038 of 2021
Between:-
B.P. CHAKRAWARTI, S/O LATE SHRI S.L.
CHAKRAWARTI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SUB-ENGINEER, PUBLIC
HEALTH ENGINEERING, SUB-DIVISION
SALEEMNABAD, DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SMT. JUNE CHOUDHARI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH KU.
JAYALAKSHMI IYER, LEARNED COUNSEL AND SHRI RATNESH YADAV,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC
HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
1.
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, HEAD OF PUBLIC
HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH
2.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, JAL BHAWAN,
BANGANGA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
THE COMMISSIONER JABALPUR, DIVISION
3. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
THE COLLECTOR KATNI, DISTT. KATNI
4. (MADHYA PRADESH)
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC
HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
5.
PARIYOJANA WARD NO. 3, KATNI, DISTT.
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ABHAY SHANKAR PATHAK, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENTS/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
W.P. No. 21038/2021
2
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
against the order dated 13.04.2020 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No. 3-
Commissioner, Jabalpur whereby minor penalty of stoppage of one increment
with non cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the case are that the petitioner was initially
appointed on 06.03.1987 on the post of Sub Engineer, Class-III. Thereafter, the
services of the petitioner were regularized and was posted from time to time in
various Division of P.H.E. department. The petitioner was shocked to receive a
show cause notice dated 01.08.2018 informing the petitioner that a proposal to
take action against him under Rule 16 of the Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1966').
The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 08.01.2020 denying the charges
levelled against him in toto. The petitioner was shocked to receive the impugned
order dated 13.04.2020 by which punishment of stoppage of one increment
without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner under Section 10 (4) of
the Rules of 1966. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by
filing the present writ petition.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order
dated 13.04.2020 has been issued by respondent No. 3 who is not the competent
authority to impose punishment under Rule 16 (1) of the Rules of 1966.
Respondent No. 3 is neither an appointing authority nor having powers of
disciplinary authority, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
W.P. No. 21038/2021
Secondly, it was contended that once the charges have been denied, it was
incumbent upon the respondents to conduct a regular enquiry under Rule 14
before passing any punishment order which has not been done in this case.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by
the Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Versus Union of India & Others
reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180.
5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the State has supported the
order passed by the respondent No.3 but did not dispute that no departmental
enquiry was conducted before imposing the minor penalty of withholding the
increment of one year without cumulative effect.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this Court thinks it apposite to
consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K.
Bhardwaj (supra) in which it has been held as under:-
"3. While we agree with the first proposition of the
High Court having regard to the rule position which
expressly says that "withholding increment of pay with or
without cumulative effect" is a minor penalty, we find it
not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even
in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be
given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to
file his explanation with respect to the charges against
him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are
denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should
also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the
principle of natural justice and the said requirement
cannot be dispensed with."
W.P. No. 21038/2021
8. The petitioner had not admitted the allegations made in the notice. He had
specifically denied the allegations. Whether the petitioner should have dismissed
the application for mutation for want of prosecution or not and whether the
petitioner was negligent in discharging his duties or not, are certain disputed
questions of fact, which cannot be decided without holding a departmental
enquiry.
9. Accordingly, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of O.K.Bhardwaj (supra), the impugned order dated 13.04.2020
(Annexure P/1) by which one increment was stopped without cumulative effect is
hereby quashed. The respondents are granted liberty that if they so desire they can
initiate a departmental enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner. It
is made clear that if a departmental enquiry is initiated then the Inquiry Officer as
well as the Disciplinary Authority shall decide the same without getting
influenced/prejudiced by the finding recorded by the respondent No.3.
10. This petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
ashish
Digitally signed by ASHISH
KUMAR LILHARE
Date: 2022.04.23 15:21:35 +05'30'
