Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hanuman Dulare Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 May, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 27 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 14174 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
HANUMAN DULARE SHARMA S/O SHRI RAMKISHORE
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT.
TEACHER R/O DATIA AT PRESENT GOVT. MIDDEL
SCHOOL SADWARA DISTRICT DATIA M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAVI SHANKAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY R/O GOVT. OF M.P. VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DATIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA DIXIT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
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 directed against the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by District Education
Officer, Datia in Case No.Est./2022/608 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 him without holding any regular 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 de hors 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 imposed is of such a nature, affecting the rights of an employee
during service and ever after service, it has to be treated as major penalty, which
cannot be imposed without conducting a full fledged 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. & Others [Writ Petition No.16619 of 2022, decided on
06.12.2022] on 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 Ravindra Dixit, learned counsel for the State while
supporting the order of imposition of stoppage of one increment with
cumulative effect passed by the Collector, Datia has opposed the prayer so
made by counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the present
petition.
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
conducted.
8. In the light of the judgment cited above by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and in the wake of the admitted position, this Court finds grave
illegality in the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by District Education Officer,
Datia. 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 him.
9. With aforesaid observations, the present petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
