Ranjeet Sahu vs M.P. Purve Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2699 MP

                                                            1
                          IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                            ON THE 14 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 14906 of 2016

                         BETWEEN:-
                         RANJEET SAHU S/O SHRI SHAMBHU SAHU, AGED
                         ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JUNIOR ENGINEER
                         M.P. PURVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD.
                         KHAMARPANI, DIVISION SAUSAR, CHHINDWARA
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI K.N.PETHIA - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    M.P. PURVE KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD.
                               THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGINGH
                               DIRECTOR     SHAKTI   BHAWAN,   JABALPUR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (O AND M) POORVA
                               KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. DIVIN.
                               AMARWADA    TEH.  AMRWADA  (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI RAKESH TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

                               T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                         following:
                                                             ORDER

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of order Annexure P/2 dated 21.11.2013 and the order Annexure P/4 dated 13.2.2014 passed by the Executive Engineer (O&M), Madhya Pradesh Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited, Division Amarwada, Tahsil Amarwada, District Chhindwara vide which the departmental Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

2/14/2023 7:23:32 PM

enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali versus Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Another in Civil Appeal No.958/2010 decided on 16.12.2015 to contend that the departmental enquiry is fraught with malafides. Petitioner was given Letter of Appreciation as contained in Annexure P/8, which is not a general letter but specifically given to the petitioner for his contribution in collection of revenue. Petitioner had made a complaint to the Superintending Engineer, M.P.E.B, Chhindwara and thereafter a news was published in Dainik Bhaskar vide Annexure P/10 and thereafter the concerned Energy Minister Shri

Paras Chandra Jain had sent a communication to the Managing Director vide Annexure P/11 to take action against the Superintending Engineer, M.P.E.B, Chhindwara. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner had filed reply to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet and thereafter a supplementary charge sheet was issued to him. After issuance of the charge sheet, the respondents are sleeping over the matter for over one year. Respondents are deliberately delaying the enquiry, therefore, on the ground of delay and latches, quashing of order Annexure P/2 dated 21.11.2013 and the order Annexure P/4 dated 13.2.2014 passed by the Executive engineer (O&M), Madhya Pradesh Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited, Division Amarwada, Tahsil Amarwada, District Chhindwara is sought.

Learned counsel for the respondents, in his turn, submits that there is no delay on the part of the respondents. Petitioner himself is delaying the proceedings. Drawing attention of this Court to the Annexure R/1, he points out

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

2/14/2023 7:23:32 PM

that there is a clear mention of the dates on which the enquiry proceedings were initiated but until a stay was granted by this Hon'ble High Court on 14.9.2016, the Delinquent Officer did not remain present before the Inquiry Officer and the proceedings were adjourned for over a period of one and a half years on account of non-cooperation of the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties & gone through the material available on record.

The issue, which is involved herein, is as to whether the delay in completion of enquiry will vitiate the enquiry?. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali (supra) but the facts of Prem Nath Bali (supra) are different. In that case, Prem Nath Bali was under suspension for a period of nine years and twenty-six days. That period of suspension was not added towards the qualifying service for the purpose of computation of his pension. The Apex Court has held that following the order of suspension, the petitioner was visited with major penalty of compulsory retirement. Thus, there is passing observation in Paragraph No.33 of the judgment in Prem Nath Bali (supra) that the enquiry should be concluded within six months and where it is not possible for the employer to conclude it within the said period due to certain unavoidable circumstances then the proceedings should be made to conclude

within a reasonable extended period depending upon the case and nature of the enquiry but not more than one year. Thus, the direction of the Apex Court in Prem Nath Bali (supra) is only directory and not mandatory. The Apex Court has not narrated that what will be the consequences if the enquiry is not completed within one year.

In the present case, as is evident from Annexure R/1, the petitioner did Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

2/14/2023 7:23:32 PM

not appear before the Inquiry Officer for a good period of about eighteen months, therefore, the petitioner himself is responsible for causing delay in conducting the inquiry and the judgment of Prem Nath Bali (supra) will be of no assistance to the petitioner.

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the similar issue is already decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.13092/2017 [Ranjeet Sahu versus Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited & Others] on 4.2.2021 wherein recording a finding that the delay in departmental enquiry was caused due to non- cooperation of the petitioner, the Court held that nobody can be given advantage of his own misdoings and wrongdoings and accordingly the prayer for quashing was rejected.

In the present case, it is evident that as far as Annexure P/8, Annexure P/9, Annexure P/10 & Annexure P/11 are concerned, they are subsequent developments and they cannot be taken into consideration to quash the charge sheets, which were issued in the year 2012 & 2014 respectively. Petitioner has not been able to rebut the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was responsible for delay in departmental enquiry and did not appear before the Inquiry Officer till he procured the stay order from a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 14.9.2016. Thus, a person, who is himself responsible for the delay, cannot take advantage of his own mistake and seek quashing of the proceedings.

The allegation of corruption etc and indulgence of the Local Minister are matters of routine and they do not depict any malafide on the part of the authority. Petitioner has not impleaded any individual as party-respondent to

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

2/14/2023 7:23:32 PM

allege malafides and to establish malafides, therefore, one of the submission(s) raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet speaks of malafide, there is a letter of M.L.A, news paper clipping etc, they being all subsequent developments, cannot be taken into consideration to quash the charge sheets. Thus, when the petitioner himself is responsible for the delay, the challenge to the charge sheets on merit is not made out.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the departmental enquiry is already complete and the result was not declared because of the interim order of this Hon'ble High Court, the petitioner having failed to make out a case for quashing of the charge sheets, which has limited ground to do so, namely, lack of authority, malafide or arbitrariness or to show that the charges were too stale, the prayer for quashing the order Annexure P/2 dated 21.11.2013 and the order Annexure P/4 dated 13.2.2014 passed by the Executive Engineer (O&M), Madhya Pradesh Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited, Division Amarwada, Tahsil Amarwada, District Chhindwara is rejected. Respondents are directed to take a decision on the basis of the enquiry report within a period of thirty days from today under communication to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. Let record be sent back.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

2/14/2023 7:23:32 PM