Madhya Pradesh High Court
Badriprasad vs Madhya Pradesh Power Generating ... on 8 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 8 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1737 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
BADRIPRASAD S/O BABULAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PLANT SUBSIDIARY (SAYANTRA
SAHAYAK) CHP II SATPURA ELECTRIC HOUSE MADHYA
PRADESH POWER GENERATING COMPANY LIMITED
SARNI DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAHUL RAWAT - ADVOCATE)
AND
MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING COMPANY
LIMITED SARNI DISTT. BETUL THR. ITS
SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (SERVICES) II SARNI
DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ARPAN PAWAR - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved of the charge-sheet dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure P-
5) issued by the Superintending Engineer (Services) Two, Madhya Pradesh
Power Generating Company Ltd., Sarni levying two charges against the
petitioner, namely, he furnished incorrect information about his date of birth in
the service record which is different from the school leaving certificate, etc. and
on the basis of the forged certificate he obtained appointment, which is violation
of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 and
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Act, 1966.
2. Similarly, charge No.2 is to the effect that a criminal case was registered
against the petitioner bearing crime No.67/92 under Sections 452 and 354 of
IPC in which he was arrested on 17.03.1992 for which charge-sheet was filed
on 18.03.1992 bearing No.84/92, but he had suppressed this fact in his
verification form, which is again violation of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 and Madhya Pradesh Civil Services
Act, 1966.
3. Shri Rahul Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both
the charges are vague. In support of charge No.2, respondents have enclosed
the verification form showing its date as 04.06.2002, whereas fact of the matter
is that verification form is to be filled at the time of joining the services. Thus,
from where they have put date of 04.06.2002, is not evident, inasmuch as,
petitioner had filled his verification form in 1982 when he was inducted in the
services of the respondent.
4. Similarly, it is submitted that in the school record date of birth of the
petitioner is shown as 16.05.1961, which is also mentioned in the verification
form as 16.05.1961. Therefore, charge of manipulation in the date of birth is
prima facie not made out.
5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 5 SCC 88 and it is
submitted that disciplinary proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, there
should be some evidence to prove the charge. Though proof beyond all
reasonable doubt as required in criminal trial is not necessary in departmental
proceedings, charges in said proceedings has to be proved by preponderance
of probability. It is also held that the Enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial
function. It is further held that delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings,
after 6 years and continuance thereof for a period of 7 years prejudiced the
delinquent officer.
6. In the present case, facts are important. On 06.05.2003, petitioner was
visited with penalty of termination from service. He had filed case
No.63/MPIR/2003 before the Labour Court, Betul. Learned Labour Court,
Betul vide order dated 30.05.2005 had declared the termination of the petitioner
to be illegal and ordered for his reinstatement with 80% backwages. This order
was challenged by the department before the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Court,
Bench at Bhopal, where it was registered as CA No.197 of 2005. There the case
of the Divisional Engineer challenging the order of the Labour Court was
dismissed and it is held by the learned Industrial Court that the reinstatement of
the applicant in service is proper. But he could not be awarded 80% back
wages in view of the fact that the wrong information was supplied by the
applicant in the Attestation Form. There is a warning in the Attestation Form
that the applicant should not suppress any material information and he should
not give any false information. Learned Industrial Court noted that the applicant
had rendered about 22 years of service and, therefore, he could be reinstated in
service but the back wages could not be allowed to him as he was not
completely exonerated of the charges.
7. Against this order of Industrial Court, the Divisional Engineer and others
had filed W.P. No.13601 of 2008 (S) which came to be decided by a Division
Bench of this High Court vide order dated 21.01.2009 and Division Bench of
this High Court dismissed the petition filed by the department.
8. Against the aforesaid order of the High Court, Divisional Engineer and
others had preferred Petition (S) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
No(S).15010/2009 before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed
vide order dated 29.11.2010.
9. Thus, if any departmental enquiry was to be initiated then, it could be
have been initiated at least immediately after the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 29.11.2010 but, the departmental authorities were sleeping over their
right to initiate departmental enquiry and admittedly issued charge-sheet on
18.01.2017.
10. When this Court asked Shri Arpan Pawar, learned counsel for the
respondent to file affidavit of the Managing Director of the Madhya Pradesh
Power Generating Company Ltd. then, vide I.A. No.6612/2024, affidavit of Shri
Manjeet Singh has been filed in which it is mentioned that in the year 2015,
charge-sheets were issued to three erring officials, namely, Shri S.K. Jain,
Superintending Engineer, Shri K.S. Verma, Superintending Engineer and Shri
S.K. Pandey, Superintending Engineer. It is interesting that charge-sheet was
though issued on 26.11.2015, yet the authorities of the respondent had not
woken up from their slumber to issue charge-sheet to the petitioner and they
hushed up the matter by inflicting minor penalty of ''Censure'' on two of the
officers and reprimanded another officer vide order dated 14.02.2017, just
prior to that charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 18.01.2017. Thus, for
the charges which pertain to year 1982 and 2002, issuance of charge-sheet in the
year 2017 for which in fact petitioner has already been punished by way of
denial of back wages by the Industrial Court, as is evident from Annexure P-2,
petitioner cannot be allowed to be subjected to double jeopardy.
11. It is evident that charge No.1 is not proved on the facts of the matter.
Shri Arpan Pawar admits that date of birth as was received from the concerned
school vide Annexure R-7, is the same as is mentioned by the petitioner in his
service book. Therefore, charge No.1 being not made out, no enquiry could
have been conducted to harass the petitioner.
12. As far as charge No.2 is concerned, it was for the fault of the
department that they were sleeping for over 20 years to obtain a verification
form which they should have obtained in the year 1982 itself. As far as that
mistake of suppressing the fact of trial in criminal case is concerned, that has
already been taken care of by way of penalty of denial of back wages upon
reinstatement, as is evident from the orders of the Industrial Court.
13. In view of such facts, petitioner cannot be allowed to be punished
twice, especially, when he has attained the age of superannuation. Thus, on
account of delay and latches and also on account of indifference of the
respondents in conducting their work properly, and shielding the delinquent
officers, as is evident from the affidavit of Shri Manjeet Singh, this Court is of
the opinion that in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.V.
Bijlani (supra), wherein para 16 categorically deals with the issue of delay and
latches in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or their continuance after such
long time, will definitely prejudice the delinquent officer and, therefore,
impugned charge-sheet dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure P-5) is hereby quashed.
Petition is allowed.
14. Respondent shall bear the cost of this litigation which is quantified at
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only).
15. In above terms, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
pp
