Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Hemlata Kuril vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 20 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 13643 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SMT. HEMLATA KURIL D/O LATE MATADEEN KURIL,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, GOVT.
HIGH SCHOOL, R/O: WARD NO. 01, DIST. BARWANI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. COM M ISSION ER , TRIBAL OFFICE, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI KAUSTUBH PATHAK - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred against the order dated 11.01.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by
the Commissioner, Tribal Office, Bhopal, respondent No.2 as well as the order
dated 02.05.2024 (Annnexure P-7) passed by respondent No.1 whereby only
on the basis of issuance of show cause notice and the reply filed therein by the
present petitioner, major penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative
effect has been imposed on the petitioner without holding any Departmental
Enquiry.
2. The aforesaid order has been assailed on the ground that while
imposing the aforesaid penalty, no charge-sheet was issued, no imputation of
charges were framed, no regular Departmental Enquiry was conducted, no
witnesses were called for proving the charge nor any opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner for cross examine to the witnesses was granted, therefore, the
entire procedure adopted by the Collector in imposing such penalty dehors the
Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), 1966.
Thus, it deserves to be quashed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State
of Punjab reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504 has contended that
withholding of increment to pay with cumulative effect except after holding
enquiry and following due steps is bad in law and the said order being without
jurisdiction or authority of law is per se void.
4. Further reliance was placed in the matter of M.M. Mudgal Vs. State
of M.P. & Ors. reported in ILR 2012 (MP) 2651 wherein it has been held
that if a penalty is imposed is of such a nature, affecting the rights of an
employee during service and after even service, it has to be treated as major
penalty, which cannot be imposed without conducting a fulfledged enquiry as
enumerated under Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal), 1966 and admittedly the penalty which has been imposed would affect
the pay of the petitioner, during his service tenure as reduced pay would be paid
to him as well as would affect him after his retirement, of his pension after his
retirement would be reduced, thus, the said order is in after violation of Rule 14
MPCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and admittedly as no
charge-sheet has been issued only on the basis of show cause notice, penalty
has been imposed which deserves to be quashed. He has further placed reliance
in the matter of K.R. Shankara Kaimal Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. reported
in 1995 MPLJ (SN) 54 wherein it has been held that the stoppage of annual
increment with cumulative effect amounts to major penalty and imposition of
such major penalty after notice without following due procedure and without
conducting a regular Departmental Enquiry is per se illegal.
5. Lastly, he has placed reliance in the matter of R.D. Panchoriya Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors. wherein after considering the aforesaid judgments, the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that stoppage of one increment with
cumulative effect is a major penalty and as no regular Departmental Enquiry has
been conducted in the matter, the imposition of such penalty was held to be bad
in law and was accordingly quashed.
6. Per contra, Shri Kaustubh Pathak, learned counsel for the State had
supported the order of imposition of stoppage of one increment with
cumulative effect passed by respondent No.2 but candidly admitted that no
enquiry has been conducted before passing of such order, as is reflected from
the annexed documents along-with petition. He though submits that the reply
has not been filed in the matter but as the legal position is very well settled, thus,
necessary order may be passed by this Court.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record,
this Court finds that the stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is in
general a major punishment as the deferment of an increment would
continuously perpetuate during the rest of the entire service period of the
employee and it would adversely affect his salary during service as well as
service benefits like gratuity, pensions etc. after retirement and admittedly, when
the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is a major
penalty then necessarily regular Departmental Enquiry was required to be
conducted before passing such order which in the present matter has not been.
8. In the light of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and in the wake of the admitted position, this Court finds grave
illegality in the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by respondent No.2.
Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and liberty is granted to the
respondents to conduct a Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner in case,
they want to proceed against her.
9. With aforesaid direction, petition stands allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Anushree
