Shiv Narayan Sharma vs The State Agricultural Marketing ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 17612 MP

                                                             1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                              ON THE 20 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 3939 of 2016

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA S/O LATESHRI BHOLARAM
                           SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           SERVICE KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI GOHAD
                           DIST.BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI AMIT LAHOTI - ADVOCATE AND MS. SIMRAN KOTHARI -
                           ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD
                                 THR MANAGING DIRECTOR 26 ARERA HILLS
                                 KISAN BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    MANAGING     DIRECTOR    MP      STATE
                                 AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD 26 ARERA
                                 HILLS KISAN BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    CHAIRMAN    MP    STATE   AGRICULTURE
                                 MARKETING BOARD 26 ARERA HILLS KISAN
                                 BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI DATIA
                                 DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI S.P. JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 10/20/2023 6:16:57 PM

been preferred against the order of punishment dated 20.11.2014 passed by respondent No.2, Managing Director, M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board, Bhopal, whereby a major penalty of stoppage of his two increments with cumulative effect in terms of the provisions contained in clause 30(2) of the Rajya Mandi Board Sewa Viniyam, 1998 was passed with further direction that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get any further amount except subsistence allowance for the intervening period during which he remained under suspension. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2016 passed in appeal by respondent No.3, Chairman, M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board, Bhopal, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against

the order of punishment dated 20.11.2014 was also dismissed and the order of punishment was upheld.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is holding post of Assistant Sub-Inspector which is a part of State Mandi Board Service constituted under Section 26 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 and at the relevant point of time, he was posted as Mandi Inspector in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Datia. Vide order dated 14.03.2012, respondent No. 2 Managing Director in exercise of powers conferred on him under Clause 35(1) of the Rajya Mandi Board Sewa Viniyam, 1998 laid the petitioner under suspension alleging dereliction in his duties. Later on, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet together with the articles of charges, statement of imputations, list of documents and list of witnesses etc. on 08.05.2012. A reply/explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 21.05.2012 in regard to the charges levelled against him in the said charge-sheet and the charges were denied in toto. However, the Disciplinary Authority having not found the said reply/explanation satisfactory passed an order dated 01.11.2012, whereby the Departmental Enquiry was ordered to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 10/20/2023 6:16:57 PM

initiated against the petitioner and Deputy Director, M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board, Gwalior was appointed as Inquiry Officer and Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Morena was appointed as Presenting Officer. After conducting the Departmental Enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority on 04.09.2013. The said inquiry report was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and it was held that Departmental Enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law. Hence, vide order dated 22.05.2014, the Disciplinary Authority appointed another Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. At this juncture, after conducting the Departmental Enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report with the Disciplinary Authority on 08.08.2014, wherein it was concluded by the Inquiry Officer that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not found to be proved.

3. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 22.09.2014 calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply/explanation within a period of 10 days showing cause as to why he should not be inflicted the punishment of stoppage of three yearly increments with cumulative effect, but admittedly alongwith the said show cause notice, no inquiry report has been annexed as contemplated under Clause 32(9) and 32(10) of M.P. Rajya Mandi Board Sewa Viniyam, 1998. The petitioner submitted his reply/explanation but

without considering the contents of the said reply, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2014, whereby the punishment of stoppage of his two increments with cumulative effect was imposed. Against the said order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which came to be decided vide order dated 23.02.2016 which was

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 10/20/2023 6:16:57 PM

dismissed and the order passed by the disciplinary authority was affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the orders suffer from basic infirmity that they are not in consonance with the principles of natural justice, as no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. It was further argued that as per Clause 32(9) and 32(10) of M.P. Rajya Mandi Board Sewa Viniyam, 1998 it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to have furnished copy of inquiry report alongwith the show cause notice which was in favour of the petitioner and which could have facilitated him to submit a detailed and comprehensive reply to the show cause notice issued by Disciplinary Authority. It is also argued that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are not in consonance with the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, reported in 2010(9) SCC 496 (para 51), wherein it is observed that even Quasi Judicial authorities are required to pass reasoned and speaking order and in absence thereof, it could be said that principles of natural justice has not been followed. From perusal of the order dated 20.11.2014 (Anneuxre P/1) and the order dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure P/2), it is reflected that the aforesaid orders are total non-speaking orders and without assigning any reasons, the same were passed. Apart from that to bolster his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in AIR 1998 SC 2713.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in pursuance to the show cause notice issued by Disciplinary Authority in the reply, no objection was taken by the petitioner with regard to the fact that no inquiry report has been furnished, even at the appellate stage the aforesaid Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 10/20/2023 6:16:57 PM

objection was not taken, therefore, it could be safely said that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in the event of non-supply of inquiry report. Therefore, the order dated 20.11.2014 (Anneuxre P/1) and the order dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure P/2) cannot be faulted with and need no interference. Thus, prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

6. As per Section 81-A read with Section 26(2) of M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam 1972, Rajya Mandi Board Sewa Viniyam, 1998 have been formulated and have been made effective w.e.f. 13.07.1998. As per Clause 32(10) of the Rajya Mandi Board Sewa Viniyam, 1998, which relates to the procedure which is to be adopted for inflicting major penalties, there is specific mention that the Disciplinary Authority is required to furnish a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent and since the said Rajya Mandi Board Sewa Viniyam, 1998 is having statutory force, the requirements becomes mandatory. Admittedly, the inquiry report has not been furnished to the petitioner and in absence thereof there is a clear violation of the said Clause 32(10) of the Rajya Mandi Board Sewa Viniyam, 1998. Further, it is observed that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority are not in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kranti Associates (supra) as both are non speaking orders and no reason has been assigned therein and thus vitiates principle of natural justice as laid down by the Apex Court in the above matter. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Punjab National Bank (Supra) which has been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner specifically lays down that in case an inquiry report is in favour of the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority is in disagreement with

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 10/20/2023 6:16:57 PM

the said inquiry report, the reasons are required to be accorded in that context while disagreeing but from the order of the Disciplinary Authority it is reflected that no reasoning has been assigned while disagreeing with the inquiry report which was in favour of the petitioner.

7. Thus, on these counts, the petition deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. The orders dated 20.11.2014 (Anneuxre P/1) and the order dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure P/2) are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. respondent No.2 for fresh adjudication. Disciplinary Authority is directed to issue fresh show cause notice and furnish the inquiry report to the petitioner and thereafter after receiving the reply may take appropriate decision in the matter and pass a necessary, speaking and reasoned order.

8. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.

9. Since the matter is an old matter, the disciplinary authority is expected to decide the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving of

certified copy of the order.

E-copy/ certified copy as per rules/directions.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 10/20/2023 6:16:57 PM