Madhya Pradesh High Court
D.N.Singh Lrs Smt.Sushilai Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 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 13 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 33 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
1. D.N.SINGH LRS SMT.SUSHILAI SINGH W/O LATE
SHRI D.N. SINGH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RAS
MOHNI ROAD GOHPARU DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PREM KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE SHRI D.N. SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RAS MOHNI ROAD
GOHPARU DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(NONE FOR THE PETITIONERS )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRIBAL WELFARE
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT M.P.
BHOPAL TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT SATPURA
BHAVAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TAPAN BHATRE - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed being aggrieved of the order dated 29.08.2005,
Annexure P-1 passed by the respondent No.1 - Principal Secretary, Tribal
Welfare Department rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order
of punishment dated 11.03.2003 imposing of reduction of 25% pension
permanently from the salary of the petitioner beside recovery of loss caused to
the public ex chequer.
Brief facts, leading to the present case are that the petitioner was working
as Block Education Officer, Gohparu, district - Shahdol. He attained the age of
superannuation on 31.07.2001. Prior to that, he was posted as Block Education
Officer at Jaisinghnagar, Shahdol before his transfer to Gohparu, Shahdol.
Vide order dated 14.03.1997, the petitioner was placed under suspension.
Thereafter a charge-sheet was issued to him on 22.04.1997 by the respondent
No.2. Out of 18 witnesses enlisted in the list of witnesses, the Department had
examined only 15 witnesses. The petitioner was asked to submit defence and
finally at the conclusion of the the enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted on
30.11.1998 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner was asked to submit reply within
fifteen days and the petitioner submitted his reply on 05.03.1999. The
petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2001 and after retirement
when the departmental enquiry was not concluded, the petitioner filed O.A.
No.1700/2002 which was decided by the State Administrative Tribunal vide
order dated 18.07.2002 contained in Annexure P-7 directing the disciplinary
authority to take final decision within two months from the date of production
of the said order.
In view of such direction of the State Administrative Tribunal, the
impugned order of punishment (Annexure P-2) was passed by the authorities
against which the petitioner had filed an appeal to the Governor as contained in
Annexure P-8 which came to be decided on the basis of the fact that there is no
provision of appeal under the Pension Rules and the impugned order having
been passed in pursuance of the provisions contained in the Pension Rules,
hence, the appeal was rejected.
It is submitted that decision of the respondents violates the provisions
contained in Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1966 and that being the position, the petitioner is entitled to
prefer an appeal under Rule 23 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Therefore, rejection of the appeal is not proper.
Petitioner's contention is that enquiry officer had opined that joint enquiry
should have been conducted but the fact of the matter is that disciplinary
authority has a right and took a different view from the enquiry officer and
decided to impose penalty on the basis of certain findings of fact of
misappropriation etc.
Respondents/State have filed their reply and it is submitted that there is
no violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was involved in
financial irregularities which were carried out under his nose. The petitioner is
guilty of causing loss of Rs.2,47,755/- to the Department. Beside recovery it
was also decided to impose penalty of withholding 25% of the pension under
Rule 9 of the MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Since, there is no
violation of principles of natural justice, impugned order does not call for any
interference and, therefore, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed.
In the present case, it is evident that charge-sheet was issued by the
competent authority as per the Rules and principles of natural justice were also
followed. There is no allegation that the procedure adopted in the enquiry was
not consistent with the principles of natural justice. There was disclosure of
documents by the disciplinary authority. Enquiry officer though had not given
his finding but it cannot be said that evidential material which was provided did
not amount to prove guilt of the employee in respect of charge against him with
some degree of definiteness.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at
Bombay v. Shashikant Patil , AIR 2000 SC 22 , has held that if there is some
legal evidence on which the findings can be based then adequacy or even
liability of that evidence is not a matter calling judicial review. Law laid down in
the case of Superintendent, Government T.B. Sanatorium v. J.
Shrinivasan, (1998) 8 SCC 572 provides that the factual findings of the
disciplinary authority are not open to challenge and the power to judicial review
does not extend to examine the correctness or truth of the charges.
In the case of High Court of Judicature of Bombay v Shirishkumar
Rangrao Patil, AIR 1997 SC 2631 it is held that while exercising the powers
of judicial review, the Courts cannot embark upon an appreciation of evidence
and arrive at a conclusion of its own on the sufficiency of evidence or on the
correctness of conclusion which is based on such evidence.
Law in regard to disagreement is provided in MP Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules itself, which provide that after
receiving the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority may find it difficult to
agree with the findings in the enquiry report. The Rules provide that in case of
such disagreement, he must record its reasons and also record its own finding
if the evidence is already on record, is sufficient for that purpose. Hon'ble the
Supreme Court has held that in case of disagreement, disciplinary authority is
not obliged to give fresh notice. [For reference see judgment in the case of SBI
v. S. Koushal, (1994) Supp. (2) SCC 468.] It is held that no such requirement
could be deduced from the principles of natural justice. It is also held that
enquiry officer report was not binding upon the disciplinary authority and it was
open to the disciplinary authority to come to its own conclusion on the
charges.
In the present case, since there is no violation of principles of natural
justice, there is no infraction in the procedural requirement to be followed and
on the basis of the material available on record, charge No.2 was found to be
proved by the enquiry officer in part against the delinquent employee. Charge
No.2 was that he had withdrawn the amount from the GPF accounts of six
employees in a fraudulent manner and had misappropriated the amount. Charge
No.5 dealing with forged withdrawal of rent for the same period and preparation
of false bills for payment of rent, was fond to be proved partially by the enquiry
officer. Even charge No.6, that the petitioner had not taken 65 items in the stock
of the store and causing loss to the tune of Rs.4,38,097/-, was found to be
partially proved by the enquiry officer.
Thus, the contention of the petitioner that he has wrongly been visited
with the penalty is not acceptable.
In view of the above when such facts are tested in the light of law laid
down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the impugned order cannot be faulted
with calling for interference by this Court. The petition being devoid of merit,
stands dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ks
