D.P. Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 9068 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

D.P. Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2024

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                             1
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                 ON THE 3 rd OF APRIL, 2024
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 4572 of 2018

                           BETWEEN:-
                           D.P. JHARIYA S/O LATE SHRI D.L. JHARIYA, AGED
                           ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE (ASSTT.
                           GRADE-3) O/O. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER
                           RESOURCES DIVISION PANNA R/O. SECTOR NO. 3,
                           BLOCK NO. 1, DEOPRABHAKAR NAGAR DADDA DHAM
                           JHINGRI, DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI NARINDER PAL SINGH RUPRAH - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCE
                                 DEPT. MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN,
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    ENGINEER IN CHIEF WATER RESOURCE
                                 DEPARTMENT JAL SANSADHAN BHAWAN, TULSI
                                 NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    CHIEF OFFICER, DHASAN KEN KACHAR, WATER
                                 RESOURCE DEPARTMENT TILL ROAD, SAGAR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure P-2), whereby petitioner has been visited with penalty of

reversion from the post of Assistant Grade II to the post of Assistant Grade III by the Engineer-in-chief, Water Resources Department and also the order dated 13.10.2017 (Annexure P-19), whereby the State Government rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner.

2. Brief facts leading to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade III on 20.11.1979. He was promoted as Assistant Grade II on 22.06.1990. The petitioner was discharging his duties as Assistant Grade II, without any stigma, when he was given a charge-sheet on 24.08.2013 (Annexure P-3) alleging that he had irregularly shown recovery from the service book of Shri Akhil Varshney, Executive Engineer and had not calculated the

Leave Encashment of Shri M.D. Sahu, Retired Sub Engineer, as per the rules and instead of 173 days Leave Encashment, only 130 days of Leave Encashment was done with a view to incur loss to him.

3. Petitioner's contention is that he had replied to the charge sheet. In the meanwhile, vide order dated 04.12.2013 petitioner was placed under suspension and then vide order dated 02.03.2015 (Annexure P-4), he was visited with penalty of 'Censure' as was inflicted by the Chief Engineer, Dhasan Ken Basin, Water Resources Department, Sagar.

4. It is petitioner's contention that for the same set of charge another charge-sheet was given to him as contained in Annexure P-5, wherein the charge against him was that while posted as a clerk in the establishment of Water Resources Division, Panna, he had not carried out his duties properly, as a result of which, concerned cases became pending and their number increased to an exorbitant dimension.

5. It was alleged that the petitioner while posted at Panna from 11.04.2011 to 13.12.2013 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources

Division, had acted showing lack of devotion towards duties. It was alleged that he used to attend office from 12 noon to 4:00 PM and for most of the time he was not performing his work. It was also alleged that one Shri M.D. Sahu had attained age of superannuation on 31.01.2013. His retiral dues were to be paid promptly, but for the lack of promptness on the part of the charged officer, Shri M.D. Sahu had made a representation to the Superintending Engineer on 01.07.2013, after which his retiral benefits were paid in part.

6. Similarly, in case of one Shri B.L. Golhani, Sub Engineer, who retired on 31.07.2013, but till the date of suspension of the petitioner on 04.12.2013, he had not taken any steps to prepare pension case of Shri Golhani.

7. Similarly, Shri Gorelal Kharaul, Assistant Grade II was directed as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court dated 07.05.2013 and the petitioner had prepared a note sheet he is not experienced enough to deal with such cases, but after initially avoiding payment, it was alleged that the charged officer had prepared the bills, which brings his conduct within the purview of doubt.

8. Similarly, it was alleged that in case of Shri V.P. Patel, Retired Assistant Engineer, his retiral benefits were not made promptly and illegal gratification was sought for clearing such dues.

9. It is submitted that the original order as well as the appellate order are perverse. They show the mentality of the Disciplinary Authority and the

Appellate Authority to harass the petitioner.

10. It is submitted that as per the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Vs. Union of India and others, (1986) 3 SCC 103, the appellate authority is obliged to assign reasons on the aforesaid aspects. Same is the view followed in Vijay pal Singh Vs. Union of India and

others, (2008) 8 SCC 236, Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240, Vijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 242, Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530.

11. It is further submitted that on the same set of charges, two punishments could not have been inflicted against the petitioner and it's a case of punishment without there being any evidence.

12. It is submitted that enquiry report is Annexure P-7, as was submitted by one Shri K.G. Singh, Enquiry Officer and Superintending Engineer.

13. A perusal of the enquiry report, reveals that Shri M.D. Sahu, prosecution witness, clearly deposed that Shri Jhariya had demanded a sum of Rs.60,000/- which was when not paid to Shri Jhariya then, delay in processing his retiral dues had taken place. Though this contention was denied by Shri Jhariya, but he could not explain the delay in settling the retiral dues of Shri Sahu. Similarly, in case of Shri Golhani it has come on record that petitioner was delinquent in processing his retiral benefits.

14. Shri R.K. Patel, Assistant Engineer had also alleged that money was demanded by Shri Jhariya and the conversation in regard to demand of money etc. among Shri R.K. Patel, Shri Awadhiya and Shri Jhariya was recorded in the CD (Ex.P-3).

15. In view of such facts the Enquiry officer held Shri Jhariya to be guilty of the charges. Thereafter, proper procedure was followed, and after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner impugned order was passed.

16. Respondents have filed their return and have submitted that the petition is misconceived. There are proved allegations of corruption and lack of

devotion towards duty. Shri R.K. Patel had produced a CD, though its authenticity was not tested, but it is a vital piece of evidence. Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, requires every Government servant to maintain absolute integrity, devotion of duty and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant, but petitioner had failed to comply with the requirements and, therefore, in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 749, judicial interference in the proceedings of the departmental inquiry is not warranted as there is no violation of principles of natural justice or of statutory rules.

17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that the procedure as prescribed under Rules 14 and 15 of CCA Rules has been followed. Petitioner was given a show cause notice after receiving the copy of the enquiry report. Petitioner was given full opportunity to participate in the departmental enquiry. After show cause notice was given, Engineer-in-Chief issued a notice asking the delinquent to appear before him on 10.04.2015. Shri D.P. Jhariya had given a letter of apology to the Engineer-in- Chief. Thereafter, after considering the material on record, impugned order of punishment has been passed. That order of punishment is based on the factual findings in the enquiry report which could not be reverted or contradicted by the delinquent employee. Thus, impugned order dated 27.04.2015 inflicting penalty of reduction in rank in terms of Rule 10(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, cannot be faulted with.

18. Similarly the order passed in appeal being based on the material

available on record, cannot be faulted with. In fact, in the departmental enquiry or in the matter of punishment, the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited. It has to see that whether there is application or mind or not? Whether principles of natural justice were followed or not while imposing the penalty? Whether penalty is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct or not?

19. Law is that judicial interference in the matter of imposition of punishment by a disciplinary authority, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation limited Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72: AIR 1997 SC 1030, that:-

''20. 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 a catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to refer to a few decisions of this Court on this topic viz. State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557 , Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Ramchandra (1981) 2 SCC 714, and Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 711.''

20. It is also held in case of State of Punjab Vs. Surjeet Singh conductor, (1996) 8 SCC 350 that imposition of punishment is within the power and discretion of the authority and civil courts have no jurisdiction to substitute the punishment imposed by such authority. Even otherwise, the subject matter of the earlier order of punishment inflicted by the Chief Engineer, giving penalty of 'Censure' is different from the charge sheet issued in the

present matter and, therefore, even the principles of double jeopardy are not applicable.

21. Thus, petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE pp