Sanjay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16983 MP

                        - : 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  AT I N D O R E
                       BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

            ON THE 12th OF OCTOBER, 2023

           WRIT PETITION No. 12985 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
SANJAY S/O SHANKARLAL CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 43
YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOTHING VILLAGE AND
TEHSIL HAT PIPLIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                         .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHUTOSH NIMGAONKAR-ADVOCATE)

AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
1. SECRETARY     COOPERATION       MANTRALAYA,
   VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
   COMMISSIONER     SOCIETIES   CO   OPERATIVE
2. SOCIETIES VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN GR. FLOOR
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
3.
   DEWAS DISTRICT A.B. ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
   UNNAT KRISHI SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA MYDT.
4. THROUGH OFFICER IN CHARGE HAT PIPLIYA
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                      .....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH-ADVOCATE)
(BY SHRI SHARAD PAWAR-ADVOCATE/ RESPONDENT R-4)

           WRIT PETITION No. 12987 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
SANJAY S/O KAILASHCHANDRA PATIDAR, AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOTHING VILLAGE
AND TEHSIL HAT PIPLIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                         .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHUTOSH NIMGAONKAR-ADVOCATE)
                               - : 2 :-


AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
1. SECRETARY     COOPERATION       MANTRALAYA,
   VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
   COMMISSIONER     SOCIETIES   CO   OPERATIVE
2. SOCIETIES VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN GR. FLOOR
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
3.
   DEWAS DISTRICT A.B. ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
   UNNAT KRISHI SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA MYDT.
4. THROUGH OFFICER IN CHARGE HAT PIPLIYA
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                              .....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH-ADVOCATE) .
(BY SHRI SHARAD PAWAR-ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT [R-4].
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:

                            ORDER

The petitioners have filed these petition being aggrieved by the order dated 10.05.2022 whereby they have been terminated from services in exercise of power under the provision of Sewa (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Karya Sthiti) Niyam (henceforth '' Niyam'').

2. Vide judgment dated 29.10.2021 passed by Second Additional Session Judge, Bagli, District Dewas in S.T. No.54/2015, these petitioners were convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) (1), 467, 468, 471 and 409 of IPC. Against the said judgment, these petitioners have preferred an Criminal Appeal No.6813/2021 in which jail sentence has been suspended by this Court.

3. The Deputy Registrar Cooperative, Dewas vide letter dated 02.02.2022 sought an opinion from District Prosecution Officer,

- : 3 :-

District Dewas in respect of disciplinary action to be taken against the petitioners of conviction after the judgment dated 29.10.2021. Vide reply dated 12.04.2022 District Prosecution Officer, District Dewas gave an opinion that these petitioners are liable to be punished under Section 10 (9) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 (henceforth '' CCA, Rules, 1966'') as in Criminal Appeal No.6813/2021, only the sentence has been stayed. After the aforesaid opinion, vide letter dated 26.04.2022, the Deputy Registrar, directed the respondent No.2 to take disciplinary action under Rule 23 (iii) of CCA Rules,1966. In compliance of the aforesaid, vide order dated 10.05.2022, the petitioners have been terminated from the services, hence, these petitions before this Court.

4. The petitioners are challenging the impugned order inter alia on the ground that they have been terminated from the services without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under the Rule 28 of the Niyam. They submits that admittedly the conviction by any court of law is a major misconduct but under Section 25 of Niyam there are four types of punishment provided and it is discretion of Disciplinary Authority to decide which punishment would be appropriated for delinquent in proportionate to major misconduct committed by the delinquent and that can be done only after conducting the Departmental Enquiry as contemplated under Section 28 of the Niyam. It is further submitted the provisions of CCA, Rules, 1966 does not in this case because the employees of Societies are governed by their own Services Rules and in which there is no such dispensation of the Departmental Enquiry upon conviction.

- : 4 :-

5. Government Advocate as well as counsel for the respondent No.3 submit that Deputy Director directed to respondent No.3 to take disciplinary action and accordingly impugned order has been passed by terminating the petitioners from services. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been convicted by the court of law for the offence under Indian Penal Code which is moral turpitude, therefore, except termination there is no lesser punishment which can be imposed. Even if the enquiry is conducted that would be futile exercise because the petitioners are not disputing the conviction and this Court has only stayed the sentence not conviction, hence, termination/dismissal is the only penalty for them, thus Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The aforesaid facts are not in disputed, only interpretation of Rule 28 of Niyam is required to be done. Vide letter dated 26.04.2022, the Deputy Director only informed the Administrator about the conviction of the petitioners and directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against these petitioners. Deputy Director did not direct to the Administrator to directly pass an order of termination without enquiry.

7. Rule 24 provides the minor misconduct. For committing the major misconduct, the punishment is provided under Rule 25 which is reproduced below:

25- xEHkhj nqjkpj.k gsrq n.M %& xaHkhj nqjkpj.k ds fy;s nks"kh ik;s x;s deZpkjh dks mlds }kjk laLFkk dks igqapk;s x;s uqdlku dh okLrfod jkf'k dh olwyh ds vykok mlds vkpj.k dh xEHkhjrk ds vuqlkj fuEufyf[kr esa ls dksbZ ,d naM fn;k tk ldsxk %& ¼v½ orZeku /kkfjr in ls fuEu in Js.kh esa inkour djuk ,oa rn~uqlkj osrueku fu/kkZj.k djukA ¼c½ vfuok;Z lsok&fuo`fRrA ¼l½ lsok ls i`Fkd djuk] (Termination) tks fd Hkkoh fu;kstu ds fy;s fujgZrk

- : 5 :-

u gksxhA ¼n½ lap;h vFkok vlap;h izHkko ls okf"kZd osru o`f) jksdukA ¼b½ lsok ls inP;qr fd;k tkuk (Dismisal) tks fd Hkkoh fu;kstu ds fy;s fujgZrk gksxhA

8. Rule 28 provides the procedure for to be followed before imposing major punishment and which specifically says that the employee on charges of major misconduct shall not be punished unless the misconduct is proved by Departmental Enquiry by Authorized Officer and thereafter complete procedure is provided. Rule 28 is reproduced below:

28- fdlh deZpkjh dks ml ij vkjksfir xaaHkhj nqjkpj.k ds fy;s rc rd nf.Mr ugha fd;k tkosxk tc rd fd tkap gsrq vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk fuEukuqlkj tkap djds deZpkjh ds fo:) nqjkpj.k dk nks"k fl) ugha dj fn;k tkrk %&

(i) l{ke vf/kdkjh vFkok mlds }kjk vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh deZpkjh dks ifjf'k"V 4 esa fn;s izk:i esa xaHkhj nqjkpj.k ds fy;s vkjksi i= nsxk vkSj lk/kkj.k nqjkpj.k ds fy;s ifjf'k"V 5 esa fn;s izk:i esa vkjksi i= nsxkA vkjksi i= esa nqjkpj.k dk rFkk mlds fo:) ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk Li"V mYys[k fd;k tkosxk vkSj mldk Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk tkosxkA

(ii) deZpkjh dks mldk Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr djus gsrq le;] tks fd dkj.k crkvksa lwpuk i= esa fufnZ"V gksxk] fn;k tkosxkA

(iii) deZpkjh dks viuk cpko Lo;a djus vFkok bl gsrq laLFkk ds fdlh vU; deZpkjh dh lgk;rk ysus dh vuqefr gksxhA fdUrq fdlh ckgjh O;fDr dks deZpkjh ds cpko gsrq iSjoh djus dh vuqefr ugha gksxhA

(iv) dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= dk mRrj izkIr gksus ij] mldk nLrkosth; ijh{k.k fd;k tkosxk ,oa mRrj larqf"Vdkjd ugha ik;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa fuEukuqlkj foHkkxh; tkap dh dk;Zokgh izkjaHk dh tk,xhA

(v) l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk vkjksiksa dh foHkkxh; tkap gsrq ,sls O;fDr dh fu;qfDr dh tkosxh] tks vkjksih deZpkjh ls inuke esa ofj"B gks lkFk gh vkjksiksa ds i{k leFkZu esa rF; izLrqr djus gsrq izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDr dh tk;sxhA l{ke vf/kdkjh vFkok vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk vkjksih deZpkjh dks vkjksiksa dk Li"V mYys[k djrs gq, ,oa nLrkost o xokg dh lwph tks vkjksiksa dh iqf"V djrs gksa] layXu djrs gq, vkjksi i= tkjh fd;k tkosxk ,oa mldk mRrj izkIr fd;k tkosxkA

(vi) ;fn vkjksih vf/kjksfir vkjksiksa dks vLohdkj djrk gS rks izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh vkjksiksa dks fl) djus gsrq xokg ,oa vko';d nLrkost izLrqr djsxkA

(vii) izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh ds i{k leFkZu iw.kZ gksus ds mijkar vkjksih deZpkjh dks vius cpko esa i{k leFkZu gsrq rF; ,oa xokg izLrqr djus dk leqfpr volj iznku fd;k tkosxkA

(viii) tkap vf/kdkjh] foHkkxh; tkap izfdz;k dk ikyu djrs gq, mHk; i{kksa }kjk izLrqr lk{;ksa o rF;ksa dh foospuk dj tkap izfrosnu izLrqr djsxkA

(ix) tkap vf/kdkjh ls izfrosnu izkIr gksus ij vkjksi izekf.kr gks tkus ds

- : 6 :-

vk/kkj ij l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk xaHkhj nqjkpj.k gsrq izko/kkfur n.M izLrkfor djrs gq, vafre dkj.k crkvksa lwpuk i= O;fDrxr lquokbZ dh frfFk fu/kkZfjr djrs gq, tkjh fd;k tkosxkA

(x) vkjksfir deZpkjh }kjk vafre dkj.k crkvksa lwpuk i= ds izfr mRrj esa fyf[kr vFkok ekSf[kd :i ls izLrqr rF;ksa dks fyfic) dj ,oa tkap izfrosnu esa mfYyf[kr rF;ksa dk laijh{k.k dj vkjksi izekf.kr ik;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij l{ke vf/kdkjh xaHkhj nqjkpj.k gsrq izko/kkfur n.M esa ls n.M dk fu/kkZj.k djsxk ,oa rn+uqlkj n.Mkns'k tkjh djsxkA

9. Shri Nimgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioners rightly submits that even if there is admitted major misconduct but still the the Competent Authority is required to decide that as to what would be appropriate punishment under Rule 25. The entire material is liable to be considered in Departmental Enquiry before passing any order of punishment. even if the employee has been convicted by Criminal Court.

10. There is no such provision under the Rules for dispensation of enquiry has provided Rule 19 of CCA Rules, 1966. Upon conviction the enquiry cannot be dispensed with for termination of the employee under Niyam. It is also settled law that the standard of proving charge in Departmental Enquiry and in Criminal Trial are altogether different. The findings recorded by the Criminal Court may not influence the Disciplinary Authority to impose punishment of termination from service as the Rule 25 provides four types of punishment in case of major misconduct.

11. An objection is also raised about the maintainability of Writ Petition for want of remedy under Section 55 (2) of the Cooperative Societies Act. Under Section 55 (2), the dispute is liable to be raised before the Deputy Registrar but in the present case, the Deputy Registrar vide letter dated 02.02.2022 directed to Administrator to take action, therefore, he had already made up his mind for taking disciplinary action, however, the Deputy Registrar has only directed

- : 7 :-

to take disciplinary but did not propose any punishment. Even if the dispute is raised, the Deputy Registrar will remand back to Disciplinary Authority for taking disciplinary action, thus this objection is rejected. Only the Society /Bank is competent to conduct the Departmental Enquiry not Deputy Registrar.

12. In view of above, both the Writ Petition are allowed. Impugned order dated 10.05.2022 is quashed. Matter is remanded back to initiate the procedure available under Rule 23 of the Niyam.

Certified copy as per rules.

Let copy of this order be retained in connected Writ Petition.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE praveen

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN Date: 2023.10.13 14:15:18 +05'30'