Mangleshwar Prasad Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8399 MP

                                                                               1
                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                         AT JABALPUR
                                                                 BEFORE
                                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
                                                              ON THE 24th OF JUNE, 2022

                                                      WRIT PETITION No. 7328 of 2022

                                   Between:-
                                   MANGLESHWAR PRASAD SHUKLA S/O LATE SHRI R.B.
                                   SHUKLA , AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                   ACCOUNTANT OFFICE OF DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER,
                                   UMARIA, DISTRICT UMARIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                                .....PETITIONER
                                   (BY SHRI ROHIT SOHGAURA, ADVOCATE)

                                   AND

                         1.        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                   PRINCIPAL  SECRETARY   AYUSH   DEPARTMENT
                                   VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.        THE COMMISSIONER AYUSH DEPARTMENT SATPURA
                                   BHAWAN, BHOPAL, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.        JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE YAUSH SATPURA
                                   BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.        DISTRICT YAUSH OFFICER, REWA DISTRICT- REWA,
                                   (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         5.        DISTRICT   AYUSH   OFFICER,   UMARIA DISTRICT-
                                   UMARIA, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
                                   (BY SHRI PRADEEP SINGH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

The petitioner has filed this petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Signature Not Verified praying for the following reliefs:

SAN

"7.1 That, this Court may be please to call the records pertaining to present disciplinary Digitally signed by ASTHA SEN Date: 2022.06.25 13:38:25 IST proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

7.2 That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 23/02/2022 (Annexure P/12) passed by respondent No.1 being illegal, arbitrary and against the settled provisions of law.

7.3 That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash impugned order dated 19/07/2021 (Annexure P/8) and 10/11/2021 (Annexure P/10) passed by respondent No.2 being illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law.

7.4 That any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted."

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on account of non compliance with his transfer order, he was confronted with the order withholding two increments with non cumulative effect dated 19/07/2021 (Annexure P/8) without issuing show cause

notice or without extending any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner then applied for review of the said order specifically taking ground that before passing of the order, he has not been granted an opportunity of hearing, therefore, the principle of natural justice was violated, however, the review of the petitioner was also dismissed by a non speaking contained in para 35 of the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal whereby the appellate authority also declined to interfere with the order of imposition of penalty. Thus, the petitioner submits that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 and in the case of Lal Audhraj Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1970 MP series (ILR) 911 and submits that even imposition minor penalty, the principle of audi alteram partem are required to be adhered.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner had filed a Signature Not Verified SAN

review petition assailing the original order dated 19/07/2021 and the reviewing authority Digitally signed by ASTHA SEN

by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, rejected the review petition. Date: 2022.06.25 13:38:25 IST

Thereafter, Appeal Authority as well, after extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, dismissed the appeal. Hence proper opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner, therefore, the ground of the petitioner that he was not heard, is ill founded.

Heard rival submissions of the parties.

Perusal of order dated 19/07/2021 (Annexure P/8) shows that neither any show cause notice nor an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the orders impugned. The return of the State is also conspicuously silent as regards the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the order impugned imposing the penalty of withholding two increments with non cumulative effect dated 19/07/2021 (Annexure P/8).

Thus, in view of the law laid down in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj (Supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that since no opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner before passing the order impugned dated 19/07/2021 (Annexure P/8), thus, the orders impugned Annexure P/8, Annexure P/10 and Annexure P/12 are hereby quashed.

The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner while giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and then take a decision.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE Astha

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ASTHA SEN Date: 2022.06.25 13:38:25 IST