Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Kumar Gour vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGRAWAL
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION N0. 28309 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MAHENDRA KUMAR GOUR, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, SON OF SHRI BHAIYALAL GOUR, ASSIS-
TANT TEACHER, RESIDENT OF WARD NO.8, NEW
COLONY, BUDHNI, VILLAGE BUDHNI, DISTRICT
SEHORE (M.P.).
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AMIT KUMAR CHATURVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCI-
PAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL AFFAIRS DEPART-
MENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MAD-
HYA PRADESH).
2. THE COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, BHOPAL
DIVISION BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE COLLECTOR, SEHORE, DISTRICT SE-
HORE (MADHYA PRADESH).
4. THE DISTRICT ORGANIZER, SCHEDULE
TRIBE AND SCHEDULE CASTE WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, SEHORE, DISTRICT SEHORE
(MADHYA PRADESH).
.....RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SHRI SOURABH SONI - PANEL LAWYER)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved of
order dated 07.09.2020 Annx.P/1, by which petitioner was given minor
penalty of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect.
Thereafter, petitioner had filed an appeal to the Commissioner, Bhopal
Division, Bhopal (M.P.), which rejected the appeal vide order dated
31.12.2020. Petitioner had sought review of this order, which too was
rejected vide order dated 07.07.2021.
2. Petitioner's contention is that without following the due procedure
without conducting any enquiry, petitioner visited with minor penalty.
"vkjksi dza0&01 fnukad [email protected]@2019 dks ?kVuk ds le; vki Nk++=kokl esa mifLFkr
jgrs rks ;g ?kVuk ugh gksrh ;g vkidh ykijokgh gS A
vkjksi dza0&02 dk;kZy; }kjk vkids le;≤ ij Nk=ksa ds nSfud mi;ksx gsrq
lkexzh nh x;kh Fkh mldks vkids }kjk Nk=ksa dks u ckaVdj LVksj esas
gh j[kh ik;kh xbZ tks esjs }kjk forj.k djkbZ xbZ ;g vkidh ?kksj
ykijokgh gS A
vkjksi dza0&03 vkidsk dk;kZy; Nk=kokl ds fy, nSfud mi;ksx esa yxus okyh
lkexzh dz; djus gsrq jkf'k i;kZZIr mi;ksx gsrq nh xbZ tSls &
cYc] ,flM] fQuky] >kMw] crZu] lkcwu] lQZ ikt vkfn lkexzh dz;
gsrq jkf'k nh xbZ ftldk mi;ksx vkids }kjk ugh fd;k x;k gS A
vkjksi dza0&04 vkidk Nk=kokl ds Nk=ksa ij dqN fu;a=.k ughas gS A ;fn Nk=ksa ij
fu;a=.k gksrk rks bl izdkj dh f'kdk;rsa izkIr ugha gksrh A
vkjksi dza0&05 ?kVuk ds le; vki Nk=kokl esa ugha Fks dqN nsj Qksu dj cqyk rc
vk;s A"
3. This charge sheet is duly supported with a list of witnesses and list of
documents. Petitioner had filed reply Annx.P/5, dated 28.12.2019,
admitting two charges. After considering the reply, petitioner visited with
minor penalty.
4. Now, petitioner's counsel submits that this is in violation of the law
laid down by Supreme Court in O.K. Bharadwaj Vs. Union of India and
others [(2001) 9 SCC 180].
5. Shri Sourabh Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, supports the
order.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that once petitioner accepted two of the charges and
they were in the opinion of the disciplinary authority sufficient to inflict
minor penalty, there was no need to conduct a detailed enquiry as
contemplated because petitioner had not denied all the charges in toto. Thus,
ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in O.K. Bharadwaj (supra), being
that where he denied the charges which are factual, then an enquiry should
be called for, would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case in view of the admission made by the petitioner to two of the
charges. Thus, there being no violation of the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court, impugned orders do not call for any indulgence.
7. Accordingly, petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.02.10 18:50:21 +05'30'
