Sanjeev Saxena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6184 MP

                                                                  1
                                   IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT JABALPUR
                                                            BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                       ON THE 18 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                                    WRIT PETITION No. 14462 of 2018

                                  BETWEEN:-
                                  SANJEEV SAXENA S/O LATE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH
                                  SAXENA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                  EARLIER WORKING ON THE POST OF TEHSILDAR,
                                  TEHSIL RAJNAGAR DISTT. CHHATARPUR (MP)
                                  PRESENTLY WORKING AS TEHSILDAR AT TEHSIL
                                  BAGLI DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....PETITIONER
                                  (BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL - SR. ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI SHIV
                                  KUMAR DUBEY - ADVOCATE)

                                  AND
                                  1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
                                        PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVT. OF M.P. REVENUE
                                        DEPARTMENT      MANTRALAYA         VALLABH
                                        BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  2.    THE PRINCIPAL REVENUE COMMISSIONER
                                        MADHYA     PRADESH, PLOT NO. 220 RAHAT
                                        BHAWAN (IST FLOOR) ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
                                        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  3.    COMMISSIONER UJJAIN DIVISION DISTT. UJJAIN
                                        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  4.    COLLECTOR  AGAR    MALWA DISTT.           AGAR
                                        MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  5.    COLLECTOR     SHAJAPUR DISTT.        SHAJAPUR
                                        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
  SAN
                                  (BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2023.04.20 12:59:54 IST
                                        This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                                                                       2
                                  following:
                                                                       ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 08/05/2018 passed by the State Government inflicting penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect in terms of Rule 10 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA Rules') on the ground that impugned order fails to make compliance of the provisions contained in Rule 15(3) of the CCA Rules. It is submitted that said order has failed to take into consideration recommendations of Collector, Agar-Malwa justifying the acts of the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is a direct decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 12/02/2015

passed in W.P. No.3304/2008 (R.K. Vishwakarma Vs. The M.P. State Electricity Board and others). It is submitted that in this decision impact and affect of Rule 14 and its non-compliance is dealt with.

S hri Manas Mani Verma, learned Govt. Advocate, submits that the impugned order is an appealable order and petitioner should have filed appeal against the said order. It is further submitted that State has filed reply and after considering the enquiry report, the impugned order of punishment is passed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the ratio of the judgment in R.K. Vishwakarma (supra) is that as per the provisions contained in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the CCA Rules, the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charges is required to form the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 should be imposed on the Government servants, then it shall, make an Signature Not Verified SAN order imposing such penalty but in doing so it shall record reasons in writing. Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.04.20 12:59:54 IST In the present case, reasons in writing and formation of an opinion is

missing. Mere consultation with the Public Service Commission is not sufficient. Consultation with Public Service Commission is subsequent to forming an opinion under Rule 15(3) of the CCA Rules. Proviso below sub- rule (3) of Rule 15 which necessitates consultation with the Commission will come only when compliance of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 is made. In the present case, impugned order is silent. It appears to have failed to take into consideration recommendations of the Collector as was made to the Divisional Commissioner and also form an opinion that how charges were proved and why penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect should be imposed.

T hus , for the failure of the authorities, impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Liberty is granted to the respondents to apply its mind on the available material and after giving an opportunity of hearing to pass fresh order, if they so desire, within 60 days of the communication of this order being passed today.

In above terms, this writ appeal is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ts

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.04.20 12:59:54 IST