Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sajjan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 4 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 10833 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SAJJAN SINGH S/O SHRI TAKHAT SINGH, AGED ABOUT
59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. OFFICIAL HATPIPLIYA,
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI PRAMOD C. NAIR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE UJJAIN ZONE
UJJAIN, 2 KOTHI ROAD, UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
(TRAFFIC AND RAIL OFFICE OF POLICE DIG,
UJJAIN RANGE UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF POLICE
SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SUHAS PUNDLIK - G.A. FOR STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 18.8.2022 and 20.3.2023 whereby
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 05-10-2023
11:13:23
the petitioner has been punished by withholding of one increment with non-
cumulative effect.
2. The petitioner earlier filed W.P.No. 24323/2022 challenging the order
of minor punishment and the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to avail the remedy of appeal. Thereafter the petitioner filed appeal and
by the impugned order, the departmental appeal has also been rejected.
3. Facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector
on 18.09.1992 in police department. When he was posted at Khategaon, district
Dewas as Station House Officer and during the said period, FIR was registered
at crime No. 483/2019 under section 302 IPC.. In the said case, the accused
persons were acquitted and the petitioner was punished for not making proper
investigation in the matter.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned
order, the provisions of Rule 16 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Conduct
and Appeal) Rules, 1966 have not been followed and therefore, the impugned
order is contrary to Rule 16 of Rules, 1966 and liable to be quashed. Further,
the appellate authority has also affirmed the said order without proper
application of mind.
5. Counsel for the State supports the impugned order and submits that
petitioner has not raised the said point in the appeal and therefore, the appellate
authority has not considered the same.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
impugned order and the appellate orders, it is manifest that no inquiry under
Rule 16 of Rules, 1966 has been held before imposition of minor punishment.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union
of India & others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 has held as under :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 05-10-2023
11:13:23
"While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having
regard to the rule position which expressly says that "withholding
increments of pay with or without cumulative effect" is a minor
penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second
proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has
to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his
explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the
charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent
employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum
requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said
requirement cannot be dispensed with."
8. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Ashok Kumar
Sharma vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. & others
by order dated 27/02/2018 passed in W.P .No.2200/2017 has held has under :-
''Taking the second issue first as to whether it was within the
competence of the authority concerned to have inflicted the minor
penalty of stoppage of one increment with non- cumulative effect for a
period one year without holding a departmental enquiry as
contemplated under Rule 14 of the Rules 1966, the same is settled at
rest by the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in O.K. Bhardwaj
Vs. Union of India and others [(2001) 9 SCC 180] wherein it is held:
"3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High
Court having regard to the rule position which expressly
says that "withholding increments of pay with or without
cumulative effect" is a minor penalty, we find it not possible
to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a
minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the
delinquent employee to have his say or to file his
explanation with respect to the charges against him.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 05-10-2023
11:13:23
aforesaid cases, the impugned order of punishment by imposition of stoppage
of increment with non-cumulative effect for a period of one year cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.08.2022 and the order of
dismissal of appeal dated 20.3.2023 (Annexure-P/11) as far relates to
confirmation of order of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect
are quashed and liberty is granted to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed
against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16 of Civil
Services (Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
10. With the aforesaid, writ petition is partly allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 05-10-2023
11:13:23
