Madhya Pradesh High Court
Umesh Kumar Dhurvey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 3 rd OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 10687 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
UMESH KUMAR DHURVEY S/O B.D. DHURVEY, AGED
ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DEPUTY DIRECTOR
UMARIYA DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC
I N S TR U C TI O N GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI GIRISH KEKRE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the charge sheet dated
02.05.2023 (Annexure P/8) issued by the respondent No. 2.
2. The challenge is made solely on the ground that the respondent No.2 is
neither Appointing Authority nor Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner
because he is holding the post of Deputy Director, which is a Class I Gazetted
post and as such the State is competent authority to issue the charge sheet and
none else, therefore, the impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
3. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2012) 11 SCC
565 - Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others vs. Prabhash Chandra
Mirdha and also upon a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Tarun
Kumar Mishra vs. State of M.P. & Others-WP No. 14649/2021 decided
on 21.10.2021.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed
the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted
that the charge sheet can be issued by the authority which is subordinate to the
Appointing Authority, but punishment cannot be inflicted by the authority lower
than the Appellate Authority. He has submitted that the petition is misconceived
and deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. Undisputably the petitioner is holding the post of Deputy
Director, which is a Class I Gazetted post and the Disciplinary Authority of the
petitioner is State Government as per the Schedule appended with the Madhya
Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for
short 'Rules, 1966') specifying Appointing Authority, Disciplinary Authority and
the Appellate Authority. As per the said Schedule, for the post of Deputy
Director, Public Instructions, Appointing Authority is the State Government and
the Disciplinary Authority to impose punishment, minor or major, is the State
Government and the Appellate Authority is the Governor.
6. To reach to a concrete decision, it is appropriate to take note of the
case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Prabhash Chandra
Mirdha (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"4. The legal proposition has been laid down by this Court while
interpreting the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of
India that the removal and dismissal of a delinquent on misconduct
must be by the authority not below the appointing authority.
However, it does not mean that disciplinary proceedings may not be
initiated against the delinquent by the authority lower than the
appointing authority."
7. Thus in the above case, the Supreme Court has very specifically laid
down that the authority lower than the Appointing Authority and the Disciplinary
Authority can issue the charge sheet and as such the said case law is of no help
to the petitioner. Although, in Tarun Kumar Mishra (supra), this Court has
observed that once a decision has been taken by the Disciplinary Authority to
initiate disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent then without approval and
signature of the disciplinary authority over the charge sheet, the said charge
sheet is considered to be illegal.
8. It is also pertinent to mention here that the School Education
Department has also issued an order on 27th June, 1997 vide Order No.44-
65/85/B-2/Bees delegating powers to take disciplinary action against its
employees and authorized the authority to do so as per the provisions of Rules,
1966 and that delegation of power very categorically provides that so far as
gazetted officer, Class II is concerned, the Commissioner, Public Instructions is
competent to place the said officer under suspension and as such it is clear that
when power of suspension can be exercised by the Commissioner, he can also
issue charge sheet to the petitioner, although punishment can be inflicted by the
State Government, but issuance of charge sheet even otherwise does not give
any cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the same by filing the writ
petition.
9. In the present case, the Commissioner, Public Instructions has issued
charge sheet and according to the petitioner, neither the said authority is
Appointing Authority nor the Disciplinary Authority and therefore without
approval of the Disciplinary Authority, the charge sheet cannot be issued.
However, in the present case the position is different because the charge sheet
has been issued by the Commissioner, Public Instructions, who is head of the
department and is a lower authority than the State Government and therefore in
view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhash
Chandra Mirdha (supra), the charge sheet can be issued even by a lower
authority than the Appointing Authority.
10. Considering the facts of the case and taking note of the law laid down
by the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (supra), I
find no illegality in issuing charge sheet by the Commissioner, Public Instruction
to the petitioner.
11. Petition is misconceived and therefore it is dismissed accordingly.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA
