Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 August, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
ON THE 31st OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No.3699 OF 2023
BETWEEN :-
BALENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT/
CENTRE INCHARGE SIRMOUR, REWA (M.P.)
STATE CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. R/O
NIRMAL EMPIRE D-54 REWA (M.P.)
......PETITIONER
(BY MR. VIPIN YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND
CIVIL SUPPLY, VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (M.P.)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA
PRADESH STATE CIVIL SUPPLY
CORPORATION LTD. BHOPAL (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
( MR TARUN SENGAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
MR SHOBHITADITYA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This writ petition coming on for orders this day, JUSTICE
SUJOY PAUL passed the following :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
9/1/2023 3:58:36 PM
-2-
ORDER
With the consent, finally heard.
2. The challenge is mounted in this petition to the order dated
07/02/2023 (Annexure P/9) whereby punishment of removal from
service was inflicted on the petitioner.
3. Draped in brevity, the admitted facts between the parties are that
the petitioner who was initially placed under suspension was served
with a charge-sheet on 10/02/2020. In turn, petitioner submitted his
reply and denied the charges in toto. The Disciplinary Authority
dissatisfied with the reply of petitioner appointed an Enquiry Officer.
On 30/03/2022, the Enquiry Officer prepared his report (Annexure
P/7) and found that charges are not found to be proved.
4. The Disciplinary Authority upon receiving the said report,
exercised power under Rule 15(1) of The Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short
'CCA Rules') and remitted the matter back to another Enquiry
Officer to conduct the enquiry. In turn, this Enquiry Officer submitted
his report on 21/10/2022 (Annexure P/8) and opined that charges
could not be established.
5. Upon receiving the report of Enquiry Officer dated 21/10/2022,
Disciplinary Authority invoked Rule 15(2) of CCA Rules, disagreed
with the findings and issued a discordant notice dated 07/12/2022
Annexure R-2/1. Petitioner filed his response and thereafter,
Disciplinary Authority imposed the impugned order of punishment
dated 07/02/2023.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
9/1/2023 3:58:36 PM
6. Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
since both the Enquiry Officers by their reports dated 30/03/2022
(Annexure P/7) and 21/10/2022 (Annexure P/8) exonerated the
petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority could have taken action only as
per Rule 15 of CCA Rules. The discordant note dated 07/12/2022
which became foundation for imposition of punishment is bad in law.
7. To elaborate, Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 15, the disciplinary
authority was required to assign reasons on the basis of material on
record regarding his disagreement but no reasons are recorded in the
discordant note dated 07.12.2022 (Annexure R-2/1). Thus, the very
foundation on which edifice of punishment order is standing is liable
to be interfered with.
8. Shri Tarun Sengar, learned Penal Lawyer for the State submits
that State is a formal party.
9. Shri Shobhitadiya, learned counsel for respondent No.2
supported the discordant note dated 07.12.2022 and the punishment
order dated 07.02.2023 founded upon the said discordant note.
10. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
11. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
12. Indisputably, both the Enquiry Officers in their reports dated
30.03.2022 (Annexure P/7) and dated 21.10.2022 (Annexure P/8)
found that charges are not proved. Learned counsel for the parties
fairly admitted that in the event of exoneration of petitioner by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
9/1/2023 3:58:36 PM
Enquiry Officers, action by the disciplinary authority can be taken as
per Rule 15 of the CCA Rule. The relevant portion of the said Rules
reads as under :-
"15.Action on the inquiry report.-(1) The
disciplinary authority if it is not itself the inquiring
authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in
writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for
further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority
shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry
according to the provisions of rule 14 as far as may
be.
(2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees
with the findings of the inquiring authority on any
article of charge, record its reasons for such
disagreement and record its own finding on such
charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for
the purpose."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. The relevant portion of the discordant note dated 07.12.2022
(Annexure R-2/1) reads as under :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
9/1/2023 3:58:36 PM
^^vki ftyk dk;kZy; jhok esa dfu"B lgk;d ds in
ij fljekSj dsUnz izHkkjh ds ij dk;Zjr FksA vkidh inLFkh
of/k esa ftyk izca/kd jhok }kjk pkd?kkV iznk; dsUnz ij }kj
iznk; ;kstuk varxZr mfpr ewY; nqdkuksa dks forj.k gsrq
iznk; dsUnz fljekSj ls xsgwWa ifjogu ckor ifjogu vkns'k
Øekad&19200923250011108 fnukad 17@09@2019 ls 1000
es-Vu ,oa vkns'k Øekad&19201023250011110 fnukad
19@10@2019 ls 1000 es-Vu dqy 2000 es-Vu xsgwWa ds
ifjogu vkns'k tkjh fd;s x;s Fks ,oa vkids }kjk viuh
inLFkh iznk; dsUnz ls lEcaf/kr xksnkeksa ls mDr ek=k dk
ifjogu fleksj iznk; dsanz gsrq djk;k x;kA vkids }kjk
izsf"kr dqy ek=k esa ls 33 Vªd 18600 cksjh otu 9286-97
fDoaVy xsgwWa iznk; dsUnz pkd?kkV ij izkIr ugha gq;sA
bl lEcU/k esa eq[;ky; Kki
Øekad@LFkkiuk@20689@2020@1604 fnukad
10@02@2020 ls vkidks vkjksi i= tkjh fd;k x;kA Jh
ckysUnz flag }kjk fnukad 24@02@2020 ls mDr tkjh
vkjksi i= dks izfrmRrj izLrqr fd;k x;k tks ijh{k.k mijkar
lek/kkudkjd ugha ik;s tkus ds dkj.k eq[;ky; vkns'k
Øekad@LFkkiuk&1@20689@2020@1126 fnukad
14@12@2020 ls foHkkxh; tkap lafLFkr dh tkdj {ks=h;
izca/kd lruk dks tkapdrkZ vf/kdkjh ,oa ftyk izca/kd jhok
dks izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k x;kA
tkapdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 30@03@2022 dks
tkap izfrosnu izLrqr fd;k x;kA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk vius
tkap izfrosnu esa izfrosfnr fd;k gS fd Jh ckysUnz flag ij
vf/kjksfir vkjksi izekf.kr ugha ikrk gwWaA
eSa tkapdrkZ vf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kZ ls vlger gwWa D;ksfd
Lda/k izs"k.kdrkZ iznk; dsanz izHkkjh dk uSfrd drZO; ,oa inh;
nkf;Ro gksrk gS fd muds }kjk ifjogudrkZ dks lqiqnZ fd;s
x, Lda/k dh tkudkjh izkIrdrkZ iznk; dsanz izHkkjh dks
fu;fer :i ls nh tkos] Lda/k xarO; LFky rd igqapk gS
vFkok ugha bl lEcU/k esa izkIrdrkZ iznk; dsanz izHkkjh ls
laidZ esa jgdj tkudkjh izkIr djs] Lda/k izkIr u gksus dh
fLFkfr esa ftyk izca/kd dks lwfpr djsa ,oa ifjogudrkZ ls
tkudkjh izkIr djsaA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
9/1/2023 3:58:36 PM
vkidk ;g drZO; Fkk fd ifjogudrkZ dks eky dh
fMysojh nsrs le; ;g lqfuf'pr djrs fd ifjogudrkZ dks
iwoZ fnukadksa esa ftruh ek=k pkd?kkV iznk; dsUnz gsrq lkSaih
x;h gS] og xarO; LFky rd igqWap x;k gS vFkok ughA fdUrq
vkids }kjk vius nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu ugha fd;k x;kA**
14. A bare perusal of the relevant portion of the discordant note
shows that the disciplinary authority recorded that Enquiry Officer has
not found the charges as proved. Thereafter, he recorded his
disagreement and the 'conclusion'. A microscopic reading of sub-rule
(2) of Rule 15 leaves no room for any doubt that the disciplinary
authority has power to disagree with the findings of Enquiry Officer
but while doing so he is obliged to assign (i) reasons therefore, (ii) and
such reasons must be based on evidence on record.
15. The point involved in the case is no more res integra. The Apex
Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC
84 opined as under :-
"19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be
that the principles of natural justice have to be read
into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever
the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry
authority on any article of charge, then before it
records its own findings on such charge, it must
record its tentative reasons for such disagreement
and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity
to represent before it records its findings. The
report of the enquiry officer containing its findings
will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer
will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary
authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the
enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
9/1/2023 3:58:36 PM
we have already observed, require the authority
which has to take a final decision and can impose a
penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged
of misconduct to file a representation before the
disciplinary authority records its findings on the
charges framed against the officer."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. The view taken by Court in the aforesaid Kunj Behari Misra case
[Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 : 1998
SCC (LandS) 1783 : AIR 1998 SC 2713] has consistently been approved
and followed as is evident from the judgments in Yoginath D. Bagde v.
State of Maharashtra [(1999) 7 SCC 739 : 1999 SCC (LandS) 1385 :
AIR 1999 SC 3734], SBI v. K.P. Narayanan Kutty [(2003) 2 SCC 449 :
2003 SCC (LandS) 185 : AIR 2003 SC 1100], J.A. Naiksatam v. High
Court of Bombay [(2004) 8 SCC 653 : 2004 SCC (LandS) 1190 : AIR
2005 SC 1218], P.D. Agrawal v. SBI [(2006) 8 SCC 776 : (2007) 1 SCC
(LandS) 43 : AIR 2006 SC 2064], Ranjit Singh v. Union of India [(2006)
4 SCC 153 : 2006 SCC (LandS) 631 : AIR 2006 SC 3685] and S.P.
Malhotra v. Punjab National Bank and others (2013) 7 SCC 251.
17. If discordant note dated 07.12.2022 is minutely examined, it will
be clear like cloudless sky that (i) the disciplinary authority has
reached to a 'conclusion' without assigning any 'reason' and without
discussing and referring to any evidence whatsoever. This runs
contrary to the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate
ingrained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the CCA Rules.
18. The legislative intent behind insertion of Rule 15(2) of the CCA
Rules is clear that if disciplinary authority intends to disagree with IO's
report, he cannot disagree based on his whims or fancies or in other
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
9/1/2023 3:58:36 PM
words, it cannot be a pure ipse dixit of disciplinary authority. He is
obliged to assign 'reason' for such disagreement. In M/s Kranti
Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and
others, (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Apex Court made it clear that
'conclusion' must be based on 'reasons'. The discorded note in the
instant case contains only the 'conclusion' of disciplinary authority
without referring to the reasons and without mentioning the basis of
any evidence on record. This action of learned disciplinary authority
cannot be countenanced.
19. In view of foregoing discussion, the discordant note dated
07.12.2022 cannot be upheld and consequently, the punishment order
solely based thereupon cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.
20. Resultantly, the order of punishment dated 07.02.2023 is set
aside. The liberty is reserved to the disciplinary authority to issue a
fresh discordant note (if he so decides) in accordance with law and
proceed from that stage as per law.
21. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
manju/HK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
9/1/2023 3:58:36 PM
