Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Banapura vs Antram Damade
2023 Latest Caselaw 2323 MP

                                                                    1
                                   IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                        AT JABALPUR
                                                             BEFORE
                                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                      ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                                     WRIT PETITION No. 5512 of 2002

                                  BETWEEN:-
                                  KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI BANAPURA, TEHSIL
                                  SEONI-MALWA, DISTT. HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
                                  PRADESH) THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

                                                                                                  .....PETITIONER
                                  (BY SHRI ASHISH SHROTI & SHRI VIKRAM JOHRI - ADVOCATE)

                                  AND
                                  1.    ANTRAM DAMADE S/O SHRI SUKHLAL DAMADE,
                                        SUSPENDED CLERK, KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI
                                        BANAPURA R/O AZAD NAGAR, HOSHANGABAD
                                        ROAD, BANAPURA, TEHSIL SEONI-MALWA,
                                        DISTT. HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  2.    ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH
                                        RAJYA KRISHI VIPANAN BOARD 26, ARERA
                                        HILLS, JAIL ROAD, KISAN BHAWAN, BHOPAL
                                        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
                                  (BY SHRI SANJAY SARWATE - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)


                                        Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                                  following:
                                                                     ORDER

This petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Banapura, Tahsil Seoni Malwa Signature Not Verified SAN Distt. Hoshangabad (now Narmadapuram) being aggrieved of order dated

Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.02.13 19:04:57 IST 30/08/2002 passed by respondent No.2 in Case No.B-6/3/A/18/59/2011.

Brief facts leading to the present petition are that respondent No.1- Antram Damade was a Clerk working in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti at Banapura, Distt. Hoshangabad. A department enquiry was instituted against him and thereafter on the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry, competent authority i.e. Secretary of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti who is the petitioner before this Court imposed the punishment of removal of service vide order dated 24/10/2001 with direction that except for the subsistence allowance paid to the respondent-employee, he would not be entitled to any other amount for the period of suspension.

Respondent-employee had filed an appeal before respondent No.2. The

said appeal was heard and decided by respondent No.2 whereby vide impugned order, respondent No.2 converted the punishment of removal from service into stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. He also directed that the period of suspension shall be treated as period spent on duty for other purposes but except for the subsistence allowance received by respondent No.1, herein, he will not be entitled to any other emoluments.

Petitioner's contention is that petitioner being a disciplinary authority has a grievance against the orders passed by the appellate authority which is admittedly superior in hierarchy than the petitioner. Petitioner's contention is that disciplinary authority had found all five charges proved but the appellate authority recorded a finding that from the material available on record only two charges stood proved and yet after recording a finding of two charges being proved, inflicted a minor penalty of stoppage of two increments without

Signature Not Verified SAN cumulative effect.

Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Shri Sarwate, learned counsel for respondent No.2, in his turn, submits Date: 2023.02.13 19:04:57 IST

that respondent No.1 is a member of Schedule Caste Category. It is submitted

that there are Government circulars as have been enclosed by the petitioner as Annexure-P/13 dated 12th November, 1997 directing the disciplinary and appellate authority that how they are supposed to deal with the members of such community. This circular provides that taking into consideration that Government is providing reservation for members of the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes and other backwards classes in the Government services with a view to upgrade their social and economical status, therefore, in the matter of disciplinary proceedings, some leniency and lot of bona fide is required to be shown. It is directed that on the first occasion, they should be counseled to improve their working. Thereafter if no positive change is seen, then they should be issued a warning and thereafter disciplinary proceedings should be undertaken. It is submitted that in view of this circular and also taking into consideration, a fact that out of five charges which were levelled upon respondent No.1, only two charges were found to be proved from the material available on record, appellate authority has taken a decision which could not have been found fault by the disciplinary authority being lower in hierarchy and this order was binding. It is submitted that this misadventure on the part of the disciplinary authority to challenge the finding of superior authority is nothing but an act of insubordination.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the

record, it is evident that petitioner is expecting this Court to sit in appeal over the the decision of the appellate authority who has passed impugned order.

Law in this behalf is crystal clear. The law laid down by the Supreme Signature Not Verified SAN Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.02.13 19:04:57 IST Arora [(1997) 3 SCC 72] is considered wherein it is held that "at the outset, it

needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein, does not exercise the powers of appellate Court/authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. There is catena of judgments of this court which had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to these decisions. Suffice it to refer to few decisions of this Court on this topic viz., State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S.Sree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1723); State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao (1976) 1 SCR 521, Corporation of the City of Nagpur Vs. Ramchandra (AIR 1984 SC 626) and Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India and another (AIR 1992 SC 1981). Since High Court does not apportion the appellate jurisdiction but has to only see the procedural part of the enquiry and the proportionality of the punishment, when they are examined in the backdrop then there are no allegations of any procedural irregularity, thus, the impugned order being passed in the administrative discretion of the authority on the basis of the enquiry report, does not call for any interference.

When tested in the aforesaid light, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the order of appellate authority. No material is brought on record to show any mala fide or illegal exercise of the authority by the respondent NO.2.

Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.02.13 19:04:57 IST (VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE

ts

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.02.13 19:04:57 IST