Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganesh Ram Tiwari vs Mp State Agricultural Marketing Board ... on 22 February, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 22 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 5040 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
GANESH RAM TIWARI S/O LATE SHRIRAM TIWARI,
AGED-53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE IN MANDI
SAMITI AS ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR OF MANDI
PRESENTLY POSTED IN KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI
SEONDHA DIST. DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHRI AMIT LAHOTI ALONG WITH MISS SIMRAN KOTHARI -
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MP 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 AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING BOARD 26 ARERA HILLS KISAN
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.P. JAIN- ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
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 19.05.2016
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 Assistant Sub-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.
3. 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 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.
4. 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 leveled against the petitioner were not found to
be proved.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Against the said order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, an appeal
was preferred by the petitioner which came to be decided vide order dated
19.05.2016 which was dismissed and the order passed by the disciplinary
authority was affirmed.
8. 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.
9. 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 19.05.2016 (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.
10. 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
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
19.05.2016 (Annexure P/2) cannot be faulted with and needs no interference.
Thus, prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record.
12. 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
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.
13. 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 19.05.2016 (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.
14. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.
15. 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
Chandni
