Ram Dayal Sharma (R.D. Sharma) vs The Madhya Pradesh Rajya Beej Evam ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6186 MP

                                                            1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                ON THE 18 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 29288 of 2021

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAM DAYAL SHARMA (R.D. SHARMA) S/O LATE SHRI
                          R.R. SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          JUNIOR PRODUCTION ASSISTANT AND INCHARGE
                          FARM MANAGER, MANKISAR FARM MADHYA
                          PRADESH RAJYA BEEJ EVAM FARM VIKAS NIGAM
                          DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI PRAVEEN DUBEY - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA BEEJ EVAM
                                FARM VIKAS NIGAM THROUGH ITS MANAGING
                                DIRECTOR    J(A   ISO    9001  CERTIFIED
                                ORGANIZATION), BEEJ BHAWAN, 36 MOTHER
                                TERESA MARG, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE
                                MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA BEEJ EVAM FARM
                                VIKAS NIGAM, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI S.S. SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                             ORDER

Assailing the order dated 21.10.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.1 whereby a recovery of Rs.42540/- was directed to be made from the salary of the petitioner for the alleged loss caused for the Rabi Year Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 4/20/2023 11:09:52 AM

2001 - 2002, the present petition has been filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is working on the post of Junior Production Assistant and presently posted at Manisar Farm, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Beej Evam Farm Vikas Nigam, District Sidhi. He was due to retirement on 31.12.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation of 62 years. Initially, he was appointed on the post of Junior Production Assistant on 22.09.1983 in the respondents department. In the year 2001, when he was posted as Incharge Farm Manager at Manikshar Farm of the respondents and as per the practice prevalent, to fix liability of sown crops and with a view to achieve a given production target, a memo of understanding in the form of an agreement was

entered by the respondents with the Farm Manager. Such an agreement was always subjected to the prevailing irrigation conditions, rain fall and other climatic conditions, supply of electricity etc. The petitioner was regularly sending the reports to the respondents, but all of a sudden, he was served with a show cause notice dated 20.11.2002 alleging mismanagement and negligence towards his duties on account of poor production in the Farm, to which, he has filed a reply on 24.12.2002 explaining the entire prevailing situations, categorically denying and disputing all the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued on 17.08.2004 containing two charges alleging poor crops production and mismanagement for the year 2000 - 2001 and 2001 - 2002, which was replied by him on 16.07.2004 but a decision was taken to conduct a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Thereafter, an enquiry report was submitted on 30.06.2011 whereby both the charges levied against the petitioner were not found to be proved and he was exonerated and the proceedings of the departmental enquiry were dropped. Now, again after lapse of almost 19 years, a letter has been served on 10.01.2020 asking him to Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 4/20/2023 11:09:52 AM

submit his explanation and to appear with the documents before the respondent No.2 in pursuance to the old show cause notice dated 20.11.2002. A reply was submitted on 13.01.2020 pointing out the fact that he has been granted clear exoneration by the respondents with respect to the similar charges vide order dated 05.04.2012. Drawing attention of this Court to the earlier report which was submitted by the authorities with respect to the charges levied on earlier occasion as well as the charges levied against the petitioner in the impugned order, it is argued that the both relate to the crops production in the year 2000 - 2001 and 2001 - 2002. The earlier a consolidated report was submitted by the authorities with respect to all the crops the petitioner was dealing with and he has been exonerated and the proceedings of the departmental enquiry were dropped. Now, by the impugned order, recovery is being made affected against the petitioner. He has submitted a representation to the authorities, but of no consequences. Therefore, the present petition has been filed.

3. It is his case that the impugned order clearly reflects that the authorities have kept quite for a consideration period of more than 19 years and all of a sudden, a show cause notice has been issued and recovery is ordered against the petitioner even without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted that once the charges which were levied against the petitioner are denied by him, then in all fairness, a detailed enquiry ought to have been

conducted by the authorities in term of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India and others, 2001(9) SCC 180. He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents by filing a reply have denied all the averments contending therein that earlier departmental enquiry was

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 4/20/2023 11:09:52 AM

with respect to some other crop. Here, a show cause notice has been issued with respect to a different crop. There are serious allegations of misappropriation of funds and mismanagement by the petitioner. However there no response with respect to the delay in initiating the enquiry against the petitioner for almost 20 years approximately. Even the dates which have been mentioned in the impugned order dated 21.10.2021, there is no explanation for a period between 28.08.2007 and 18.07.2017. Counsel for the respondents could not point out that what steps have been taken by the authorities during the intervening period. He has further contended that the petitioner is having an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order. But the fact remains that earlier enquiry report which was submitted on 05.04.2012 wherein the charge No.2 was dealing with the agreement with respect to all the crops and total embezzlement amount was ascertained to Rs.4,13,215/- against the petitioner. The charge No.2 is relevant which is reproduced as under:

"vkjksi dzekad & nks laf{kIr esa% & Jh vkj0Mh0 'kekZ] dfu"B mRiknu lgk;d] lg iz{ks= izca/kd] eudhljk] }kjk o"kZ 2000&2001 ,oa 2001&02 esa fd;s x;s bdjkjukesa ls fofHkUu Qlyksa fdLeksa dk mRiknu cht ek=k 573-10 fDoaVy vfHkys[kksa esa ntZ u dj mRiknu esa gsjkQsjh dj iz{ks= dks nksuksa o"kksZa esa :i;s [email protected]& dh

gkfu igqapkus dk vkjksi gSA"

5. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents with respect to the fact that the present charges being for a different crops is unsustainable owing to the fact that the aforesaid charges clearly show it is with respect to same agreement for all the crops, therefore, it is consolidated charges levied against the petitioner, in which, he has already been exonerated and the proceedings were dropped. It is also an admitted position that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 4/20/2023 11:09:52 AM

impugned notice as well as the order have been passed after a considerable delay of 20 years. Apart from the aforesaid, the impugned order shows that the opinion which was sought from the senior officer was also not given owing to the fact of delay of 19 years. It is observed in the impugned order as under:

",evks;w ls de okLrfod mRiknu izkIr gksus ds fy, mYys[k izkd`frd dkj.kksa

ls 19 o"kZ i'pkr Vhi vafdr fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA"

6. Thus, in the backdrop of overall facts and circumstances of the case, firstly the fact that the charges levied against the petitioner vide impugned order are almost similar to that of which were levied in earlier occasion against which, the proceedings proceedings were dropped vide order dated 05.04.2012 based upon the enquiry report and secondly, the senior authority has not recommended and has observed that after a delay of 19 years, granting of opinion for a departmental enquiry is not feasible, coupled with the fact that there is no justification given by the respondents for a long delay in initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.10.2021 is unsustainable and it is hereby quashed.

7. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 4/20/2023 11:09:52 AM