R.R.Shrivastava vs M.P.Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Comp.
2024 Latest Caselaw 12483 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

R.R.Shrivastava vs M.P.Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Comp. on 3 May, 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 MAY, 2024
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 6358 of 2008

                           BETWEEN:-
                           R.R.SHRIVASTAVA S/O S/O SHRI R.K. SHRIVASTVA,
                           AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S-3 SNEH NAGR KAMLA
                           NEHRU NAGR WARD JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI K. C. GHILDIYAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI
                           ADITYA VEER SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN
                                 COMP.THROUGH    ITS    SECRETARY SHAKTI
                                 BHAWAN   RAMPUR     JABALPUR   (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    CHIEF ENGINEER [JR] M.P. POORVA KSHETRA
                                 VIDYUT VITRAN COMP. LTD. JABALPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    SUPERINTENDENT    ENGINEER    [CITY] M.P.
                                 POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMP. LTD.
                                 JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI RAKESH KUMAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

                                 T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of order Annexure P-1 dated 1/09/2007 passed by the Superintending Engineer, City Circle, Jabalpur imposing a penalty of removal from service on the petitioner based on

the enquiry report which points out towards the difference of revenue collection and deposit in the account of the Board to the extent of Rs. 6511/-.

Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned Senior Advocate places reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in W.P. No. 3304/2008 (s) on 12/02/2015 R. K. Vishwakarma Vs. The M.P. State Electricity Board and others wherein under the similar facts and circumstances, the coordinate Bench of this High Court noted the provisions contained in Rule 15(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and noted that "if the disciplinary authority having regard to the findings is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 should be imposed

on the Government servants, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty but in doing so it shall record reasons in writing:

Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any penalty on the Government servant."

Thus, it is submitted that firstly there is non-application of mind on the part of the Superintending Engineer. Secondly, the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. It is submitted that any other penalty than removal from service could have been imposed on the petitioner and that could have served the interest of justice.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents Board in his turn supports the impugned order and submits that after proper enquiry, the said order has been passed and it does not call for any interference at this

distance of time.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. There is also non-application of mind by the Disciplinary authority i.e. the Superintending Engineer. The figures are based on some estimates but how those figures could be justified in the evidence of the prosecution i.e. the evidence has not been discussed by the Superintending Engineer. It was incumbent upon the Superintending Engineer to have discussed the evidence and the cross-examination if any, so also the evidence of the delinquent officer to arrive at the findings in terms of the enquiry report. However, without resorting to such analysis, the impugned order dated 1/09/2007 has been passed which is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged act of misconduct.

Therefore, the impugned order dated 1/09/2007 is set aside and prayer to substitute the judgment of the Disciplinary authority by this Court is rejected. Matter is remitted to the Disciplinary authority to pass fresh orders after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within thirty days of receipt of certified copy of this order.

In above terms, the petition is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy