Murlidhar Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3407 MP

                                        1

                                                                  W.P. No.18734-2018



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                    BEFORE

        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                      ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2022

                     WRIT PETITION No. 18734 of 2018


     Between:-

1.   MURLIDHAR AHIRWAR S/O SHRI BHAIYA LAL
     AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
     ASSISTANT   ENGINEER,  RURAL    ENGINEERING
     SERVICE, PRESENT POSTED AS THE ASSISTANT
     ENGINEER, JANPAD PANCHAYAT, NAGOAD, DISTRICT
     SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                  .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
     THE PETITIONER)

1.   STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH THE
     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
     DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN,
     BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, RURAL ENGINEERING
     SERVICES, MADHYA PRADESH, BHOPAL (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

3.   THE COMMISSIONER,           REWA       DIVISION,   REWA
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.   THE COLLECTOR, SIDHI, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
     (BY SHRI DEEPAK SAHU, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER
     FOR THE RESPONDENTS/STATE)


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


                                    ORDER

W.P. No.18734-2018

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

2. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated

26.05.2018, Annexure P/5 issued by respondent No.3, whereby the minor penalty

of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect has been imposed on

the ground that the petitioner while posted as Sub Divisional Officer RES Sub

Division, Sihawal, District Sidhi has been found guilty of serious carelessness and

misconduct.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is

absolutely illegal, arbitrary and in violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner

was issued a charge sheet by respondent No.3 on 04.01.2018 containing one

charge. The reply to the charge sheet was submitted by the petitioner on

12.01.2018 refuting the allegations made in the charge sheet. Respondent No.3

instead of instituting a departmental inquiry, summoned the petitioner for personal

hearing on 22.05.2018 and without considering the explanation and without

following the provisions of Rule 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and only relying on the

recommendations made by respondent No.4, issued the impugned order which

could not have been done. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached

this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on perusal of the

impugned order it can be seen that there is no independent application of mind by

respondent No.3 and he has acted on the recommendations of respondent No.4.

The impugned order of penalty not only causes financial loss to the petitioner but

W.P. No.18734-2018

it would also affect the future career prospects. In view of the aforesaid, the

impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court

in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad

Singh and others as reported in (1989) 2 SCC 505, para 55 of which reads as

under:

"55. It is true that in exercise of powers of revoking or cancelling the permission is akin to and partakes of a quasi-judicial complexion and that in exercising of the former power the authority must bring to bear an unbiased mind, consider impartially the objections raised by the aggrieved party and decide the matter consistent with the principles of natural justice. The authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion. It would then not be the authority's discretion that is exercised, but someone else's. If an authority "hands over its discretion to another body it acts ultra vires". Such an interference by a person or body extraneous to the power would plainly be contrary to the nature of the power conferred upon the authority."

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State relied on the

judgments in the case of Buddhalal Gautam Vs. District Family Planning and

Health Officer as reported in 1979 (1) MPWN 37 and in the case of Anil

Kumar Pandey Vs. Managing Director, Human Resource as reported in 2013

(1) MPWN 19 to contend that the petition is not maintainable since the petitioner

has efficacious alternative remedy and without availing the same, he has

W.P. No.18734-2018

approached this Court. On this ground, he prayed for dismissal of the writ

petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. On perusal of the impugned order dated 26.05.2018 para 5 of which clearly states

that in view of the opinion given by the Collector, Sidhi, the charges against the

petitioner stand proved and therefore, punishment of withholding of two increment is

imposed. The impugned order shows total non-application of mind by the appellate

authority. The decision of the appellate authority cannot be influenced by the dictation

of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.05.2018 is hereby set aside. However, the

respondents are granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law against the petitioner

from the stage of issuance of show cause notice, if so advised.

8. Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

No order as to costs.

(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE vc