Shailendra Sahu vs The Regional Provident Fund
2022 Latest Caselaw 2911 MP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                             BEFORE
                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
                                                  &
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
                     MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.517 of 2021

               Between:-

               SHAILENDRA SAHU, S/O LATE SHRI RAMDAS
               SAHU,     AGED   ABOUT     54   YEARS,
               OCCUPATION-SOCIAL SECURITY ASSISTANT
               (SSA),   REGIONAL   PROVIDENT     FUND
               COMMISSIONER, VIJAY NAGAR, JABALPUR,
               R/O-388,   MAHAATMA GANDHI       WARD,
               RUKMANI CHHAYA, JABALPUR (M.P.)

                                                                                  .....PETITIONER

               (BY SHRI VIJAY K. TRIPATHI, ADVOCATE)

                                                AND


       1.      THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND, THROUGH
               COMMISSIONER, RACE COURSE ROAD, INDORE
               (M.P.)

       2.      THE COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL PROVIDENT
               FUND,  SANJAY  COMPLEX,  JAYENDGANJ,
               GWALIOR (M.P.)


                                                                               .....RESPONDENTS

               (BY SHRI J.K. PILLAI, ADVOCATE)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Reserved on                      :       07.12.2021

       Passed on                        :       02.03.2022

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per: Sheel Nagu, J.
                                                         MP. No.517 of 2021

                                   -   2 -



                                  ORDER

This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution assails legality, validity and propriety of order of Central Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting Gwalior dated 09.01.2020 in OA. No.202/00221/2017 vide Annexure P/1 whereby the said OA preferred by petitioner herein was dismissed by which challenge was made to order of penalty of withholding one increment cumulatively and also to the order of rejection of appeal against the aforesaid penalty order.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and documents on record including the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perused.

3. The Tribunal found absence of any procedural lapse in conduction of disciplinary proceedings and also the discretion exercised by disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority while deciding the question of quantum of penalty as neither discriminatory nor unreasonable when tested on the anvil of charges having been partly proved.

4. The charges against the petitioner were primarily of absence from duty and his objectionable conduct while discharge in his duties and while dealing with his colleagues.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner is heard at length but is unable to point out any procedural lapse in the conduction of disciplinary proceedings, but submits that charges alleged against petitioner were vague, and therefore, denied the petitioner of his right to be appropriately informed about actual misconduct alleged against MP. No.517 of 2021

- 3 -

petitioner and thus in turn, denying real and substantive opportunity of being heard to petitioner. For this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in Union of India & Others vs. Gyan Chand Chattar (2009) 12 SCC 78, Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2007) 4 SCC 566 and Transport Commissioner, Madras-5 v. A. Radha Krishna Moorthy, (1995) 1 SCC 332.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-employer relying upon the judgments of Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423 and B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 highlighting the limited scope of interference available to this Court to interfere in the findings rendered by disciplinary authority especially when no procedural lapse in conduction of enquiry could be pointed out.

7. We have gone through the pleadings as well as findings rendered by Tribunal. The Tribunal while considering the decision of B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) has found lack of procedural lapse in the disciplinary proceedings conducted by employer and further did not find any unreasonableness in the decision regarding quantum of penalty, and therefore, this Court declines interference on the aforesaid two aspects.

8. However, since only ground raised is of vagueness of charges, this Court has perused the charge sheet minutely. The petitioner was alleged with several articles of charges and after going through the charges, it is evident that it contained enough details and material particulars so as to prevent it from being sacrificed as the alter of vagueness. The charges further contained enough details so as to enable MP. No.517 of 2021

- 4 -

the petitioner to not only understand the misconduct alleged but also to respond to the same by way of reply and thereafter to defend himself by way of cross examination of management witnesses and examining defence witness.

9. In view of above discussion, this Court sees no reason to take a different view than the one taken by Tribunal, which has exercised the jurisdiction available to it in the matter in line with the law laid down by Apex Court.

10. Consequently, the petition lacks merits and is therefore dismissed without cost.

                (SHEEL NAGU)                      (PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
                  JUDGE                                      JUDGE
mohsin

Digitally signed by MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Date: 2022.03.02 12:37:45 +05'30'