Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6743 MP

                                                       1
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                 ON THE 5th OF MAY, 2022

                                          WRIT PETITION No. 28166 of 2018

                              Between:-
                              PRADEEP KUMAR SAHU S/O SHRI KHEM CHAND
                              SAHU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                              WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER AT GOVT.
                              PRIMARY SCHOOL ARCHHA SANKUL GOVT.
                              HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL NUNSER BLOCK
                              PATAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....PETITIONER
                              SHRI ANIRUDDH PRASAD PANDEY, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

                                                             AND

                      1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                              DEPUTY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT
                              AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
                              MANTRALAYA MANTRALAYA BHOPAL (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                      2.      COMMISSIONER JABALPUR DIVISION DISTT-
                              JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.      C O L L E C T O R J A B A L P U R DISTT-JABALPUR
                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      4.      DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER JABALPUR
                              DISTT-JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      5.      PRINCIPAL GOVT. H.SEC. SCHOOL NUNSAR
                              BLOCK PATAN, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                                 SHRI JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA, PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE

                           This writ petition is taken up for hearing and the Court has passed
                                                     the following:
                                                       ORDER

Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 5.8.2017 whereby on an inspection carried out by the Collector, District Jabalpur on 3.8.2017 after carrying out Jan Sunvai, the Collector himself found certain deficiencies in the Government Primary & Middle School, Archha and resultantly he Signature SAN Not Verified found the petitioner to be violating the provisions of Rule 3 of the Madhya Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.05.05 Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965 and passed the order of 19:04:21 IST

inflicting minor penalty under Rule 10(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1966 stopping two increments without cumulative effect.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 16(1) which

deals with minor penalty contemplates issuance of a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent. Since the aforesaid procedure was not followed, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State in his turn submits that the State has filed a detailed reply under affidavit of the Principal Government Higher Secondary School Nunsar-Patan, District Jabalpur and the Officer- In-Charge of the case. He submits that it is not necessary to hold a departmental enquiry for imposing minor penalty. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Audhraj Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1967 MP 284. He further submits that the detailed report has been sent by the Collector to the Divisional Commissioner and it has been duly considered by the Divisional Commissioner, which affirmed the impugned order vide its order dated 16.10.2018.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State is in agreement that Rule 16(1)

(a) makes a mention of the fact that subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, no order imposing on a Government Servant any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rules 10 & 11 shall be made except after informing the Government Servant in writing to the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal.

It is true that the departmental enquiry is not mandatory but the procedure given in Rule 16(1)(a) is mandatory. Admittedly, the aforesaid

procedure was not followed and, therefore, the impugned order dated 5.8.2017 cannot be given a seal of approval. Similarly, it can be conveniently held on the basis of the material available on record that even the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur has failed to apply his mind to the relevant provisions of the Rules and passed an order like Collector, District Jabalpur on the basis of surmises & conjectures without even opening the Rule Book i.e.Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control And Appeal) Rules, 1966 and acquainting

themselves of the provisions contained in the aforesaid Rules, therefore, the order dated 5.8.2017 and the order dated 16.10.2018 having been passed in utter disregard of the Rule 16(1)(a) deserve to and are quashed.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed & disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit