Devendra Singh Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7103 MP

                                                             1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                             BEFORE
                                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                      ON THE 11th OF MAY, 2022

                                               WRIT PETITION No. 13479 of 2016

                                      Between:-
                                      DEVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR S/O LATE SHRI
                                      ANKPATI SINGH PARIHAR, AGED ABOUT 54
                                      YEAR S, OCCUPATION: WORKING AS RURAL
                                      AGRICULTURE EXTENTION OFFICER BLOCK
                                      REWA DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                                            SHRI RAHUL MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

                                                                   AND

                                1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
                                      SECRETARY    FARMERS   WELFARE   AND
                                      AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
                                      MINISTRY, VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA
                                      PRADESH)

                                2.    DIRECTOR   FARMER    WELFARE   AND
                                      AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT VINDHYACHAL
                                      BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                3.    JOINT DIRECTOR FARMER WELFARE AND
                                      AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT REWA DIVIN.
                                      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                                       SHRI SUBODH KATHAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE

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

Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved of impugned Signature Not Verified SAN

order Annexure P/3 dated 23.5.2015 passed by the respondent No.3 Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.05.13 19:25:48 IST

Joint Director, Farmers Welfare & Agriculture Development

Department, Rewa Division, Rewa whereby he was visited with penalty of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect under Rule 10(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. Petitioner is also aggrieved of order Annexure P/6 dated 30.3.2016 rejecting his appeal by the respondent No.2 Director, Directorate, Farmers Welfare & Agriculture Development Department, Vindhyachal Bhawan, Bhopal.

Petitioner's contention is that his case is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in O.K.Bhardwaj versus Union of India &

Others (2001) 9 SCC 180. He also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill versus State of Punjab 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504. Reliance is also placed on the Division Bench Judgement of this High Court in Ku.Shailja R Jeswani versus State of M.P & Others 2000 (3) M.P.H.T 85 (NOC) and the Single Bench Judgment of this High Court in Sunil Kumar Jain versus State of M.P 2020 (1) MPWN 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since no regular enquiry under Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 was conducted against the petitioner, therefore, in view of the provisions as contained in Rule 16 (1-a) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control Signature Not Verified SAN & Appeal) Rules, 1966, no punishment could have been imposed on the Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.05.13 19:25:48 IST petitioner and such minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments

without cumulative effect is liable to be set aside.

Learned Government Advocate for the State supports the impugned orders.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as contained in Annexure P/1 in which it is mentioned that the petitioner bypassing the authority of superior hierarchy is indulging himself in direct correspondence with the superior office.The petitioner also made correspondence with the concerned Agriculture Minister directly, which amounts to violation of Sub-rules (1), (2), (3) of Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Admittedly, the petitioner had furnished his reply vide Annexure P/2 and this Court has carefully gone through the said reply. The petitioner instead of denying that he had not entered into a direct correspondence either with his superior authority or the concerned Minister has levied counter allegation on the concerned authority i.e. Joint Director, Farmers Welfare & Agriculture Development Department, Rewa.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has read his reply extensively

and it is evident that the petitioner made wild allegations against the Joint Director concerned. In view of such facts, the impugned order of penalty was passed and the appeal after affording an opportunity of

Signature Not Verified SAN hearing on 6.10.2015 was rejected.

Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.05.13 19:25:48 IST A juxtapose reading of Rule 3 & Rule 21 of the Madhya Pradesh

Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 bars canvassing of non-official or other influence and it also provides that the Government Servant shall maintain absolute integrity and devotion and do nothing, which is unbecoming of a Government Servant. The Government Servant shall act in performance of his official duties in accordance with the directions of his official superior and after obtaining the direction in writing wherever practicable and where it is not practicable to obtain the direction in writing, shall obtain written confirmation of the direction as soon thereafter as possible.

Rule 16(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides that a minor penalty can be imposed on a Government Servant after informing him in writing of 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.

Rule 16(1-a) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government Servant under Clause (a) of that Sub-rule to withhold

Signature Not Verified SAN increments of pay of Stagnation Allowance and such withholding or Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.05.13 19:25:48 IST increments of pay or Stagnation Allowance is likely to effect adversely

the amount of pension payable to the Government Servant or to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation Allowance for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation Allowance with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in Sub-rule (3) to (23) of Rule 14 before making any order imposing on the Government Servant any such penalty.

In the present case, admittedly the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. Petitioner's counsel admits that the petitioner is still left with about one year for superannuation that means that he will attain the age of superannuation in the year 2023-2024.

As far as the ratio of law laid down in Kulwant Singh Gill versus State of Punjab (supra) is concerned, in that case, two increments were stopped with cumulative effect, which was held to be major penalty. Thus, the judgment of Kulwant Singh Gill versus State of Punjab (supra) being different on facts is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

I n Ku.Shailja R.Jeswani versus State of M.P & Others (supra), the facts were that a memo was issued to petitioner Ku.Shailja R.Jeswani and the Court was of the opinion that such memo could not

Signature Not Verified SAN be construed as a proposal to take disciplinary action against the Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.05.13 19:25:48 IST petitioner. The Court held that the procedure was not followed as

contemplated under Rule 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. Thus, the judgment of Ku.Shailja R.Jeswani versus State of M.P & Others (supra) is distinguishable on its own merits inasmuch as in that case the procedure as contained in Rule 16(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 was not followed whereas in the present case, the show cause notice was issued informing the petitioner about proposal of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect and thereafter reply of the petitioner was solicited and then the order of punishment was passed, therefore, the ratio of law laid down in Ku.Shailja R.Jeswani versus State of M.P. & Others (supra) is also different on facts.

As far as the law laid down in Sunil Kumar Jain versus State of M.P (supra) is concerned, in that case, the show cause notice was

issued to the petitioner on the basis of a preliminary enquiry. The petitioner had filed his reply & denied charges. Thus, it was held that once the charges were denied then without following the procedure of holding enquiry, the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments could not have been imposed on the petitioner.

In the present case, the petitioner admittedly never denied charges but made certain more allegations in his reply to the show cause notice.

Signature Not Verified SAN There is no categorical denial of charges. The second difference is that Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.05.13 19:25:48 IST the show cause notice was not issued after conducting a preliminary

enquiry and, therefore, even the ratio of law laid down in Sunil Kumar Jain versus State of M.P (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

This brings us to the last judgment referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner and that is of O.K.Bhardwaj versus Union of India & Others (supra). The ratio of law laid down in O.K.Bhardwaj's case is that the principle of natural justice and the doctrine of audi alteram partem cannot be dispensed with and an opportunity of hearing must be given to the delinquent employee. The Court further held that if the principle of natural justice is violated then the order of punishment will be vitiated.

It is evident from the record that both at the show cause stage, the petitioner was given an opportunity to give his explanation to the imputations of allegation and thereafter at appellate stage, he was given opportunity of hearing and thereafter the order of punishment was passed. The petitioner has prima facie violated the provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 21 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

The reply to the show cause notice is not only derogatory but also reflects lack of regard for maintaining the decency in the public office. Admittedly, the petitioner directly approached the Minister bypassing

Signature Not Verified SAN the hierarchy. Rule 21 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.05.13 19:25:48 IST Rules, 1965 provides that no Government Servant shall bring or

attempt to bring any political or other influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interests in respect to matters pertaining to his service under the Government.

In view of the aforesaid, the order of punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate calling for any interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court especially when there is no violation of the principle of natural justice.

Resultantly, this writ petition fails & is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.05.13 19:25:48 IST