Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jai Shankar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 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 15 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 17462 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
JAI SHANKAR TIWARI S/O LATE TEJ NARAYAN TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
JANPAD PANCHAYAT GOURIHAR CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI
ADITYA VEER SINGH - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR .
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER BHOPAL
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR R E W A DIST. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PANCHAYAT
DIST. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ATUL DWIVEDI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Shri Atul Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that they
have some material in compliance of the order dated 04.01.2024.
This petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 30.01.2013
(Annexure P-5) passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the State Government
imposing penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect on the
petitioner.
Petitioner's case is that the Disciplinary Authority has not taken into
consideration any of the findings of the enquiry Officer and the
reply/explanation which was filed by the petitioner in response to the enquiry
report and has passed an order in a cryptic manner.
One Shri Arvind Yadav, OIC of the case, working as Joint
Commissioner Development, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur has filed his affidavit
and has pointed out that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Others, (2021) 3 SCC
806, there is no need to record any detailed finding once the Disciplinary
Authority agrees with the report of the Enquiry Officer.
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal submits that there is no dispute to this proposition
but the basic requirement of Rule 15(3) of the M.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 is that the Disciplinary
Authority will record its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the
opinion that any of the penalties specified in rule 10 should be imposed on the
Government Servant.
In the present case, Disciplinary Authority was required to atleast note
that it agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and how the representation
of the petitioner as was admittedly received on 04.06.2012 was not satisfactory
but without application of mind impugned order has been passed which cannot
be sustained in the eyes of law and even the judgment in case of Boloram
Bordoloi (supra) will not help the respondents because that says that there is
no need to give any detailed reasons if the Disciplinary Authority agrees with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer, but it does not divest the Disciplinary Authority
to be applied to the representation given by the delinquent Officer that how it is
not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, impugned orders dated 30.01.2013 (Annexure P-5) and
26.04.2019 (Annexure P-7) being cryptic and are hereby set aside. Matter is
remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the material produced by the
Enquiry Officer and the representation of the petitioner as was filed by him then
and decide the case afresh within a period of forty five days from the date of
receipt of certified copy of the order being passed today.
In above terms, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
MTK
