Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Sharan Tripathi (Sharma) vs Managing Director on 17 March, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 17 th OF MARCH, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 6965 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
BHARAT SHARAN TRIPATHI (SHARMA) S/O CHANDRA
SHEKHAR PRASAD TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HELPER M.P. PURVA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITRAN COMPANY LTD. ( O AND M) CIRCLE OLD
GALLA MANDI AMAHIYA REWA, DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AJEET KUMAR SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR THROUGH M.P.PURVA
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LTD.
SHAKTI BAHAWAN, RAMPUR, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER MP POORVA
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. ( O&M)
CIRCLE O L D GALLA MANDI AMAHIYA, REWA,
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MPPOORVA KSHETRA
VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. (O&M) WEST DIVISION
NEHRU NAGAR REWA, DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAKESH KUMAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
SAN ORDER
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Date: 2023.03.24 10:06:26 IST
Constitution of India, seeking quashing of order dated 22.08.2017 Annx.P/1
and order dated 15.04.2015 Annx.P/2, respectively.
2. Fact of the matter is that vide order dated 15.04.2017, petitioner was visited
with penalty of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect after
issuance of show cause notice dated 29.12.2015, contained in Annx.P/3,
wherein, charge of unauthorisedly taking five pieces of 33 KV Panther
Hardware in the Vehicle bearing registration No. MP-17-G/1662, was without
there being any gate pass, was levied in relation to transit which took place on
01.12.2015 at about 6:00 P.M., for which a Panchnama was prepared.
Petitioner had filed appeal against the said order, but that appeal too has been
rejected vide order dated 22.08.2017.
3. Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khand and
others [(2010) 9 SCC 496], and submits that the whole action of the
respondents is arbitrary and illegal and be therefore quashed.
4. Respondents have filed a return mentioned therein that the petition is
misconceived. Proper show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as is
contained in Annx.P/3 and petitioner should be happy that looking to the
proportion of the misconduct, he has been visited only with minor penalty,
which cannot be said to be either shocking or disproportionate to the acts of
the petitioner.
5. Petitioner has produced copy of Panchnama dated 01.12.2015, which
clearly makes note of the fact that petitioner Bharat Sharma, Assistant Lineman,
who had approached the regional stores for issue of transformers on checking
Signature Not Verified
SAN by the security guard at the gate found that he was unauthorisely committing
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.03.24 10:06:26 IST
theft of hardware of 33 KV Panther, kept by the side of the seat of the driver.
This hardware was not issued by the stores and no gate pass was issued for the
same. This Panchnama bears signatures of the petitioner.
6. Though, petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of a Coordinate
Bench in Manbahor Patel Vs. Managing Director, decided in Writ Petition
No.1121/2017 on 16.09.2021, reported in [2022(1) MPLJ 76] (MP) and
placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates
Pvt. Ltd. (supra), so also the decision of Hon'ble Suprme Court in UMC
Technbologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Food Corporation of India (Civil Appeal
No.3687/2020, decided on 16.11.2020), reported in [(2021) 2 SCC 551],
wherein it is held that the show cause notice should contain the alleged
proposed punishment against the petitioner, quashed the order of punishment in
that case terming it to be non-speaking order and relegated the matter back to
the authorities for decision.
7. Learned counsel for respondents, in his turn, submits that show cause
notice Annx.P/3, clearly provides that in case of reply being not filed within the
prescribed time and being not found satisfactory, may result in visiting penalty
of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record,
it is evident that since quantum of proposed penalty is mentioned, decision of
Supreme Court as relied on by a Coordinate Bench in Manbahor Patel
(supra) i.e. in case of UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra,) has no
application to the facts of the present case.
9. As far as issue of minor penalty is concerned, on the face of record, alleged
misconduct of intention to commit theft and taking away the valuable security in
Signature Not Verified
SAN
the form of hardware of 33 KV Panther, without issuance of any gate pass and
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.03.24 10:06:26 IST
then inflicting penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect,
can neither be said to be arbitrary nor illegal. As such, decision in case of
Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra), is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
10. Since petitioner was given a show cause notice and reply to the show
cause notice was not found to be satisfactory, inflicting penalty cannot be said
to be arbitrary or illegal calling for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this
Court, because High Court is not sitting as a second appellate authority over the
decision of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, respectively.
11. Petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.03.24 10:06:26 IST
