Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakesh Surywanshi vs Chairman M.P. State Agricultural ... on 1 April, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16874
1 W.P. No.14542/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 1st OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 14542 of 2021
LAKESH SURYWANSHI
Versus
CHAIRMAN M.P. STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND OTHERS
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Samresh Katare - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shubham Manchani - Advocate for the respondents.
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been
filed assailing the order dated 16/07/2021 passed by respondent No.2,
whereby the Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated
11/09/2019 has been dismissed and the punishment of withholding of
two increments from non-cumulative effect has been imposed upon the
petitioner.
2. By way of amendment, petitioner has also challenged the order
dated 11/09/2019 passed by respondent No.2.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was working as
Assistant Engineer in M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board, Sub
Division Jabalpur. He was served with a show cause notice on
05/11/2018 by which two charges were levied against the petitioner.
One with respect to encroachment of land admeasuring 30x50 sq.mtr. in
the premises of Upmandi Gadhimalhara and second with respect to
allotment of shops without proper auction being carried out. A detailed
reply has been submitted by the petitioner denying the charges levied
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16874
against him. Vide letter dated 20/02/2019, petitioner along with five
others were called for hearing on 01/03/2019. Petitioner duly appeared
before the Committee and thereafter a decision was taken for imposition
of punishment on the petitioner by holding the charges to be proved
against him and by exercising powers under Section 30(2) of Madhya
Pradesh Rajya Mandi Board Seva Niyam, 1998, he was served with a
punishment of withholding of two increments with non-cumulative
effect.
4. It is submitted that the punishment is imposed by respondent No.2
who was not even a party to the hearing on 01/03/2019. It is the specific
case of the petitioner that the hearing has taken place before Shri Faiz
Ahmed Kidwai and thereafter the decision was taken for imposition of
punishment by Shri Ashok Kumar Verma who has not even heard the
petitioner. Against the punishment order, an Appeal was preferred,
however no action was taken by the Authorities for a considerable time
to decide the Appeal, therefore Writ Petition was filed being W.P.
No.19703/2020, which was disposed of on 22/12/2020 directing the
Authorities to take a final decision on the Appeal within 60 days.
Thereafter Contempt Petition was filed being Conc. No.1008/2021
alleging non-compliance of order dated 22/12/2020 and thereafter the
Appeal was decided vide order dated 16/07/2021 and the punishment
order was upheld.
5. It is argued that the allegations regarding encroachment is
baseless as the decision to remove the encroachment resides with the
Secretary of the Mandi Samiti and the petitioner was not responsible for
removing the encroachment. Even otherwise, no construction was raised
during the posting of the petitioner at the relevant place, therefore
petitioner cannot be held responsible for the said encroachment. As far
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16874
as second charge regarding auction proceedings being carried out in
illegal manner by petitioner is concerned, it is argued that auction
proceedings have taken place in presence of auction committee. The
decision for auctioning was taken by the auction committee and the
same was duly approved by the Mandi Samiti. After approval, the same
was conveyed to the Deputy Director and the Office of Managing
Director and in case there are any shortcomings, the auction proceedings
could have been declared illegal then and there itself. However, no
objection was taken and the decision of the Committee was upheld.
6. It is further argued that although a minor penalty has been
imposed against the petitioner but the fact remains that once the
petitioner has submitted detailed reply to the show cause notice and has
denied the charges against him, then in all fairness an enquiry must have
been conducted in the matter regarding allegations made against the
petitioner. The present case is a case of no evidence against the
petitioner. Even the Authority who has passed the punishment order, has
not heard the petitioner. The hearing was done before Shri Faiz Ahmed
Kidwai on 01/03/2019 and the decision to impose punishment was taken
on 11/09/2019 by another person Ashok Kumar Verma i.e. after a lapse
of more than six months from the date of hearing. It is argued that in
terms of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
O.K. Bharadwaj Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2001) 9 SCC
180, a detailed enquiry should have been conducted in the matter on the
allegations made against the petitioner but that has not been done in the
present case. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is per se
illegal on both counts. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the orders passed by this Court in the case of Pahalwan Singh Meena
Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 03/09/2019 in W.P.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16874
No.10452/2018 (Gwalior Bench) and P.S. Tomar Vs. Madhya
Pradesh Vidhyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. decided on 03/09/2019 in W.P.
No.3397/2016 (Gwalior Bench).
7. On notice being issued, reply has been filed by the Authorities
denying the petition averments. It is argued that it is only a minor
penalty which has been imposed against the petitioner as the reply
submitted by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. Even
personal hearing was granted to the petitioner which is already reflected
from admission that he was heard on 01/03/2019 and thereafter the order
impugned imposing punishment was passed. There are no rules which
could be pointed out by the petitioner to substantiate his arguments that
a detailed enquiry is required to be conducted into the matter once the
principles of natural justice are followed. It is further contended that
even the order passed by the Authorities has been upheld by the
Appellate Authority, therefore the grounds taken by the petitioner before
Appellate Authority is also taken note of. Under these circumstances, no
illegality was committed by the Authorities in passing the impugned
order of punishment. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The record indicates that in the show cause notice which was
issued to the petitioner, two allegations were made against him. One
with regard to encroachment of 30x50 sq.mtr. of land in the premises of
Upmandi Garhimalhara and second with respect to allotment of shops
without proper auction. Both these allegations were replied by the
petitioner by submitting a detailed reply. Thereafter, petitioner has
appeared for hearing before the Authorities on 01/03/2019. After giving
hearing to the petitioner, Authorities have kept quite for considerable
period for more than 6 months and thereafter the punishment order has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16874
been passed by some other person. There is no specific denial by the
respondents to the aforesaid stand of the petitioner. Petitioner has further
pointed out that in terms of Section 22 of M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Act,
1972, the power to remove the encroachment in market yard lies with
the Secretary being the competent authority to remove the
encroachment. Petitioner was only working on the post of Assistant
Engineer, therefore, in terms of the Section 22 of Act, 1972, he cannot
be held guilty for not removing the encroachment from Mandi premises.
10. As far as second allegation with respect to illegal auction is
concerned, Rule 8 of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi (Allotment of
Land and Structure) Rules, 2009 deals with constitution of auction
committee and conduct of auction. The auction committee constitutes of
Chairperson, Assistant Engineer and the Secretary to complete the
quorum. The Chairperson of the Mandi Committee being authorized
person to preside over the meeting. In terms of Rule 8(5) of Rules, 2009,
the Member Secretary of the Auction committee shall prepare the
minutes of the auction proceedings immediately after conclusion of
auction/ scrutiny of the offer which is required to be signed by all the
members.
11. Rule 9 of Rules, 2009 provides for acceptance of bid/ offer which
provides for calling of meeting of market committee within 10 days of
conclusion of auction and the market committee to give sanction to the
highest bidder only if the same is not below the upset price. Therefore,
in terms of Rule 9 of Rules, 2009, the market committee is the
authorized authority to take final decision on the conclusion of the
auction. The other proceedings regarding advertisement to be published
in two prominent local Newspapers in terms of Rule 5 of Rules, 2009
were also carried out in the present case. The second allegation made
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16874
against the petitioner is that he has violated the confidentiality of upset
price. It is again incorrect because the upset price is already declared in
the Newspaper and in similar circumstances when advertisements were
issued on earlier occasion also regarding auction, the upset price was
published in Newspapers. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any
confidentiality to the upset price and accordingly, the second allegation
made against the petitioner is also baseless. Even otherwise, once the
petitioner himself has submitted a detailed reply to the show cause
notice issued to him denying all the allegations made against him, the
Authorities should have conducted an enquiry in the matter even for
imposition of minor penalty in the light of O.K. Bharadwaj (supra).
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bharadwaj
(supra) has held as under:-
"2. The High Court has recorded its opinion on two
questions: (i) that the punishment imposing stoppage of
three increments with cumulative effect is not a major
penalty but a minor penalty; (ii) in the case of minor
penalties, "it is not necessary to give opportunity to the
employee to give explanation and it is also not
necessary to hear him before awarding the penalty": a
detailed departmental enquiry is also not contemplating
in a case in which minor penalty is to be awarded.
3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High
Court having regard to the rule position which
expressly says that "withholding increments of pay with
or without cumulative effect" is a minor penalty, we
find it not possible to agree with the second
proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an
opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee
to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to
the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are
factual and if they are denied by the delinquent
employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is
the minimum requirement of the principle of natural
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16874
justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed
with."
13. If the aforesaid principle is applied to the facts and circumstances
of the present case, then it is clear that the impugned order is
unsustainable as no detailed enquiry is conducted into the matter after
denial of allegations by the petitioner to the show cause notice.
14. Under these circumstances, the impugned order as well as the
Appellate order being unsustainable, are hereby quashed.
15. The petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
