Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Vallabh Bai Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF MARCH, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 5728 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SMT. VALLABH BAI CHOUHAN W/O GHISALAL TOMAR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIMARY
SCHOOL TEACHER GRAM DILWARI, POST JAMUNIA,
TEHSIL KHILCHIPUR, DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KULDEEP PATHAK - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL
EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER RAJGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 09.01.2023 whereby
he has been punished with stoppage of one annual increment with non-
cumulative effect.
2 . Counsel for petitioner submits that the aforesaid order of minor
punishment has been passed without following the provisions of Rule 16 of
M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
3. Counsel for State opposed the prayer on the ground that the petitioner
has alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal against the order of minor
punishment. Since the order impugned has been passed in patent violation of
provisions of Rule 16 of Rules of 1966, therefore, objection of the respondents
regarding availability of alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal is not
accepted. If the impugned order is passed arbitrarily and in violation of
statutory rules, this Court may exercise discretionary power under extra
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A reference
may be made to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trademark & Ors (1998) 8 SCC 1.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union
of India & others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 has held as under :-
"While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court
having regard to the rule position which expressly says that
"withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative
effect" is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree
with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor
penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent
employee to have his say or to file his explanation with
respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges
are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent
employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the
minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and
the said requirement cannot be dispensed with."
5. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Ashok Kumar
Sharma vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. &
others by order dated 27.02.2018 passed in W.P .No.2200/2017 has held has
under :-
''Taking the second issue first as to whether it was within the
competence of the authority concerned to have inflicted the
minor penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-
cumulative effect for a period one year without holding a
departmental enquiry as contemplated under Rule 14 of the
Rules 1966, the same is settled at rest by the judgment rendered
by the Supreme Court in O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and
others [(2001) 9 SCC 180] wherein it is held:
"3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court
having regard to the rule position which expressly says that
"withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative
effect" is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with
the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an
opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have
his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges
against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they
are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also
be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle
of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed
with.''
6. The same view has been taken by Co-ordinate Bench at Gwalior in the
matter of Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of MP passed in WP No.WP
No.18375/2019 dated 4.9.2019 wherein it has been held that order of minor
punishment cannot be passed without compliance of the provisions of Rule 16
of Rules, 1966.
7. Petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet that he was ill and he is
having the medical document and certificate issued by the Authorized Medical
Officer, who certified that he was not keeping well. In case of such a defence
the inquiry ought to have been conducted.
8 . In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down in the
aforesaid cases, the impugned order of punishment of stoppage of one
increment with non cumulative effect dated 09.01.2023 is quashed. Liberty is
granted to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
