Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narmada Prasad Sharma vs Principal Secretary The State Of ... on 24 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 24 th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 4980 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
NARMADA PRASAD SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI
RAMAKANT SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE, REVENUE INSPECTOR
HOSHANGABAD TAHSIL OFFICE DISTT.
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(NONE)
AND
1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH REVENUE DEPTT. VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. C O M M I S S I O N E R NARMADAPURAM DIV.
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. C O L L E C T O R HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PIYUSH BHATNAGAR, PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed challenging order dated 21.10.2009 passed by the
Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division Hoshangabad in Appeal No.174-2008-
Signature Not Verified
SAN
09 whereby Commissioner, Narmadapuram has refused to show indulgence in
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2023.01.31 18:13:34 IST
the order of punishment dated 24.02.2009 passed in case No.20-B/121, 2007
imposing penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.
A perusal of the grounds reveal that impugned orders are challenged on
the ground that charge No.1 was partially proved by the enquiry officer and
enquiry officer has not found petitioner to be entirely responsible, therefore,
stoppage of one increment is unjust improper and bad in law.
It is also mentioned that since revenue inspector works under the
supervision of Tahsildar, therefore, there is no justification in awarding
punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on the
petitioner.
Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, in his turn, submits that impugned order was
passed after conducting detailed departmental enquiry. Charge against the
petitioner was that he committed dereliction of duty in not carrying out
demarcation of government land contained in survey No.150/6 and 150/2
situated at Industrial Area village Kishanpur, Patwari Halka No.17 Hoshangabad
so to cause undue benefit to the colonizer Mukesh Shrivastava in collusion with
the concerned Tahsildar causing doubt to the integrity of the petitioner and
proving his partition attitude.
Second charge was that petitioner failed to cause removal of
encroachment from the government land at Goha and being a silent spectator
worked against the interest of the government.
Collector, Hoshangabad has clearly mentioned in his impugned order
dated 24.02.2009 that enquiry was initiated under Rule 14 of Madhya Pradesh
Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 and in the enquiry
charge no.1 was found to be partially proved against the petitioner whereas
Signature Not Verified
SAN
charge No.2 was not proved, as a result on the basis of the enquiry report that
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2023.01.31 18:13:34 IST
when Civil Court had given directions for demarcation of the land in question
that time petitioner was part of the team which was constituted for demarcation
and he had signed as a member of the demarcation team.
Taking this fact into consideration that petitioner was negligent in
discharge of his duties in the matter of demarcation and had not followed the
prescribed methodology as prescribed under Rules and had carried out
demarcation without having taken into consideration map, boundaries,
permanent sign against the Rules and Regulations, the then tahsildar was placed
under suspension and enquiry was initiated against him also. Taking all these
facts into consideration and the role of the applicant punishment was inflicted
which has been maintained by the Commissioner in appeal.
Shri Piyush Bhagnagar submits that High Court is not hearing second
appeal and has to only see the procedural irregularity in conduct of the
departmental enquiry or whether the punishment imposed is shocking and
disproportionate to the alleged act of the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsel for the State and perusing the record, and
in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora [(1997) 3 SCC 72], 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
Signature Not Verified
SAN
punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
employee. There is catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law
Date: 2023.01.31 18:13:34 IST
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 & Anr. (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 back drop then there are no
allegations of any procedural irregularity, thus, the impugned orders being
passed in the administrative discretion of the authority on the basis of the
enquiry report, does not call for any interference, petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
Tabish
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2023.01.31 18:13:34 IST
