Chhotelal Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1616 MP

                                                         1
                          IN      THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                            ON THE 30 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                          WRIT PETITION No. 14615 of 2003

                         BETWEEN:-
                         CHHOTELAL PATEL S/O SHRI TIKARAM PATEL, AGED
                         ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SRVICE FOREST
                         GUARD PRESENTALY POSTED AT BURMAN RANGE
                         DISTRICT- NARSINGHPUR TENDUKHEDA TEHSIL
                         TENDUKHEDA,   DISTRICT-   NARSINGHPUR,    M.P.
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....PETITIONER
                         (NONE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                               THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FOREST BHOPAL
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SEONI CIRCLE
                               SEONI, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    THE             DIVISIONAL FOREST      OFFICER
                               N A R S I N G H P U R NARSINGHPUR     (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         4.    SHRI R.B.S. SOLALNKI FORESTER GADARWARA
                               RANGE DISTRICT- NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
                         (SHRI SHIV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
                         RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3/STATE)

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

Being aggrieved of order dated 26/07/1996 passed by the Divisional Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 2/2/2023 11:24:28 AM

Forest Officer, Narsinghpur Forest Division inflicting a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect after conducting a departmental enquiry and receiving an enquiry report dated 20/12/1995 where charge no. 2 namely on 11/02/1991 during surveillance Vanpal Shri Solanki had seized certain bullock carts at village Simri which was unauthorizedly transporting teak wooden blocks besides Satkatha Jalan.

Shri Chhotelal Patel was working as Van Rakshak and had misled Shri Solanki and prevent him from carrying out proper legal proceedings against said bullock carts and was responsible for their disposal.

It has also come on record that on 29/12/1995, a show-cause notice was

issued to the delinquent proposing stoppage of four increments asking him to furnish his reply. The delinquent had filed its reply on 21/01/1996. After considering the reply, the impugned order of punishment was passed.

Thereafter, petitioner had preferred an appeal, that too was rejected by the Conservator of Forest, Seoni Circle Seoni vide order dated 23/08/1999. Now, this petition is registered on transfer of the original application from the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal on its closure.

The grounds which have been raised to assail the impugned action are

mainly that petitioner is an illiterate. He is educated upto VIIIth standard. He is a Class-IV employee and that he was not having knowledge of the procedure besides other allegations.

Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate submits that it is a settled law that the High Court is not an appellate authority to the decision of the disciplinary authority and, thereafter, decision taken by the appellate authority in the appeal. The High Court is only required to examine whether any procedural irregularity had prevented the petitioner from filing his defence Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 2/2/2023 11:24:28 AM

properly and whether there is any violation of the principles of natural justice.

After hearing learned Government Advocate and going through the record and when the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Ashok Kumar 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.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 2/2/2023 11:24:28 AM

Accordingly, the petition bereft of merit deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.

Later on Shri U.S. Jaiswal, learned counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner and prays for marking his presence.

His presence is marked.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 2/2/2023 11:24:28 AM