G.P. Dharamdasani Executive Engineer vs The State Of M.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 3322 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

G.P. Dharamdasani Executive Engineer vs The State Of M.P. on 5 February, 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 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                           WRIT PET. (SERVICE) No. 1669 of 2004

                           BETWEEN:-
                           G.P. DHARAMDASANI EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R.E.T.D)
                           R/O E-70 B.D.A. COLONY KOH E FIZA BHOPAL (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                           (NONE PRESENT)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH SECRETARY
                                 PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    A D D I TI O N A L SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS
                                 D EPARTM EN T VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI SWATI ASEEM GEORGE - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the

                           following:
                                                              ORDER

None for the petitioner. On the last date also nobody had appeared for the petitioner when matter was taken up on 29.01.2024.

Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority inflicting penalty of recovery of loss caused to the public exchequer dated 18.11.2003. This order of punishment has been passed after conducting regular departmental enquiry.

There is no material on record to show that there was any illegality in the conduct of the departmental enquiry, principles of natural justice appears to have been followed and there is no allegation of violation of the same.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, AIR 1997 SC 1030 , has held that "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 base on no evidence, and or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. There is catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topics and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to refer to few decisions of this Court on this topic namely, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S.Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723; State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao, 1976(1) SCR 521 ; Corporation of City of Nagpur and Anr. Vs. Ramachandra, AIR 1984 SC 626 and Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India and Anr., AIR 1992 SC 1981".

Thus, petitioner having failed to allege any malafide or arbitrariness to the departmental proceedings and also having failed to prove the fact of any malafide or arbitrariness in the departmental enquiry, an order passed by the competent authority with the concurrence of the Public Service Commission in absence of there being any arbitrariness or illegality or malafide cannot be assailed merely for the asking. There being no ground to assail the same,

impugned order cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal calling for interference.

Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE MTK