Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Sen vs M.P. Civil Suplies Corporation on 7 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 07th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION NO.9918 OF 2023
NAGESHWAR UPADHYAY
Versus
M.P. STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance :
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shobhitaditya - Advocate for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO.12409 OF 2023
MUKESH KANHERIYA
Versus
M.P. STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance :
Shri Amber Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shobhitaditya - Advocate for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO.11280 OF 2023
RAKESH SEN
Versus
M.P. STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance :
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mayank Upadhyay - Advocate for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
&
WRIT PETITION NO.8536 OF 2023
SANDEEP MISHRA
Versus
M.P. STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance :
Shri Akash Choudhary - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shobhitaditya - Advocate for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 19/11/2024
Pronounced on : 07/04/2025
ORDER
1. Considering the identical issues involved in these petitions and on
the joint request of the parties, the matters were analogously heard and are
being decided by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, facts as narrated in W.P. No.9918 of
2023 are taken into consideration.
2.1 By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking quashing of the order
dated 18.11.2022 (Annexure P/15) passed by the disciplinary
authority inflicting upon the petitioner the punishment of dismissal
from service and treated the period of suspension with effect from
03.09.2020 to 19.04.2021 on the basis of principle "No work, No
pay" and also seeking quashing of the order passed by the appellate
authority on 17.04.2023 affirming the order passed by the
disciplinary authority and dismissing the appeal.
2.2 As per the facts of the case, petitioner was initially appointed
as a peon vide order dated 31.03.1993 and later on promoted to the
post of Judicial Assistant vide order dated 06.11.1998 and worked
on the said post from 1998 to 2019. Vide order dated 25.02.2019, he
was transferred from Sehore to Balaghat and vide order dated
04.04.2019, he was given the additional charge of overseeing the
work of delivery centres at Waraseoni and again vide order dated
13.04.2020, the petitioner was given an additional charge of
overseeing the deposits of grains by millers at various delivery
centres of Waraseoni. The petitioner had the additional charge only
upto 05.05.2020.
2.3 A guideline was issued vide order dated 05.06.2020 as to in
what manner quality of the grains deposited by the millers would be
determined at various delivery centres. Vide order dated
12.04.2020, Mr. S.P. Shrivastava was appointed as Quality
Inspector for examining the quality of grains that was being
deposited by millers at various depositing centres in Balaghat.
2.4 The petitioner was again transferred from Balaghat to
Hoshangabad vide order dated 08.07.2020. A letter was issued on
21.08.2020 by Deputy Commissioner (S & R) to the Principal
Secretary of the State of M.P. of Food, Civil Supplies and
Consumer Protection Department. The letter contained that some
enquiry was conducted in regard to the fair price shops of Balaghat
and Mandla by the Deputy Commissioner (S & R), Ministry of
Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Department
apprising that during the course of its inspection, the stock of food
grains was found to be unfit for human consumption and direction
was issued to take appropriate action against concerned officials.
However, as per the petitioner, the said inspection was done behind
his back and no notice was ever issued to him in that regard. In
compliance of the said letter, the petitioner was placed under
suspension alleging that he was found negligent in discharging his
duties and providing sub-standard quality of grains to the
consumers and not pointed out any objection about the sub-standard
quality of grains deposited by the millers. A chargesheet was also
issued on 16.10.2020. An order was also issued on 02.09.2020
repatriating the services of S.P. Shrivastava who was assigned the
duty to examine the quality at various collection centres of
Balaghat.
2.5 The enquiry report was submitted on 29.09.2020 before the
respondents observing therein that while depositing the grains by
the millers, guidelines issued and instructions contained therein
were not followed and persons in-charge of the delivery centres and
warehouses were negligent in discharging their duties. A copy of
the enquiry report is also on record as Annexure P/10.
2.6 A letter was also written by respondent No.2 to all the District
Managers on 22.10.2020 that from all the centres sub-standard
quality of grains be replaced within a period of 15 days. The
instruction was followed. Food grains were replaced and vide letter
dated 20.01.2021, intimation was forwarded about the said exercise.
An enquiry report was also submitted on 14.07.2022. The enquiry
officer recommended that two annual increments be withheld with
non-cumulative effect as the petitioner was held guilty of
negligence in discharging his duties as per the charge no.1. The
enquiry officer in its report has also observed that no actual loss
was caused to the Corporation.
2.7 A show cause notice was issued on 21.10.2022 to the
petitioner asking as to why the punishment be not inflicted upon
him on the basis of enquiry report.
2.8 A reply was submitted to the said show cause notice taking
stand therein that the enquiry was conducted in violation of
principle of natural justice as the petitioner was not allowed to
submit his defence and also taking stand therein that the enquiry
officer found him guilty on the basis of no evidence but any opinion
based upon surmises and conjectures cannot be sustained. It is also
stated that the enquiry officer has not applied his mind and not
discussed the evidence but proceeded with a presumption that the
charges are proved.
2.9 Vide order dated 18.11.2022, respondent No.2 passed an
order inflicting major penalty and punishment of dismissal from
service. As per the petitioner, the disciplinary authority violated the
provisions of Rule 15(3) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal), 1966 (for brevity, 'Rules, 1966').
2.10 An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order
dated 18.11.2022. He has also filed a petition W.P. No.305/2022.
The said writ petition, came up for hearing on 05.01.2023 and was
disposed of directing the authority to decide the appeal and the
appeal was decided vide order dated 17.04.2023 affirming the order
of disciplinary authority. Although, petitioner during the pendency
of departmental enquiry was reinstated on the post of Judicial
Assistant vide order dated 19.04.2021 by respondent No.2,
challenge is made by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the
disciplinary proceeding is against the principle of natural justice
and the authority has also violated Winsbury's Principle of Non-
arbitrariness because defence taken by the petitioner was not
considered by the authorities and according to the petitioner, it is in
violation of Rules, 1966.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that there was
nothing against the petitioners but without considering their defence,
order of punishment was passed against them making them scapegoat for
no fault. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners
that as per the requirement of provisions of Rules, 1966, the authority is
under obligation to assess and weigh the evidence adduced in defence and
give specific finding as to why the said stand taken in defence was not
proper but no reason was assigned and the authority in violation of all
those requirements, passed the impugned order. The petitioner also relied
upon a judgment passed by the High Court in the case of Dev Vrat
Mishra v. State of M.P., 2016 SCC OnLine MP 10774.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the enquiry
has been conducted following the procedure prescribed under the law and
proper opportunity has been granted and after detailed discussion of the
evidence adduced during the course of enquiry, the charges levelled
against the petitioners were found proved.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents have also submitted that only
on some technicalities, the veracity of the charges already found proved in
an enquiry proceeding, cannot be disturbed exercising the power of
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when
disciplinary authority and appellate authority after adjudging the opinion
given by the enquiry officer inflicted the punishment.
6. Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for the respondents has also
submitted that a show cause was also issued to the petitioners to which a
reply was also submitted by them and after considering the same, the
order of punishment has been passed. He has also relied upon a decision
reported in M/s. Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd. vs. Haridas and
another AIR 2006 SC 1480.
7. After hearing rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and perusal of record, the main contention of the petitioners is that
they have not been provided proper opportunity as such, proceeding
initiated by the respondents to prove the charges levelled in the charge-
sheet, principle of natural justice has not been followed.
8. Although, it is submitted by Shri Kochar, the learned counsel, that
the enquiry report and the opinion of the enquiry officer is based upon
laboratory report but that laboratory report has not been proved while
recording the evidence and the basic foundation of the opinion of the
enquiry officer is not properly proved and as such that opinion can be
considered to be unfounded. It is also pointed out by the petitioners that
in an enquiry report dated 14.07.2022, the punishment of withholding of
two annual increments with non-cumulative effect was proposed and
reply to the said show cause was submitted by the petitioners. As per the
show cause, the final observation given by the disciplinary authority was
as under :-
"मैं जांचकर्ता अधिकारी के निष्
कर्ष से सहमत हूँ। अत: इस
अंनतिम कारण बताओ सूचना पत्र की प्राप्ति के 07 दिवस में
मुख्
यालय को अवगत करावें कि प्रकरण में आपके द्वारा की
गयी लापरवाही एवं पर्यवेक्षण में कमी के लिए क्
यों न आपके
विरूद्ध मध्
य प्रदेश सिविल सेवा (वर्गीकरण नियंत्रण एवं
अपील) नियम 1966 के प्रावधान अनुसार शास्ति आधिरोपित
की जाये। आपके द्वारा निर्धारित अवधि में प्रत्
युत्
र नहीं दिए
जाने की स्थिति में यह मानते हुए कि आपको इस सम्
बन्ध
में कु छ नहीं कहना है एवं जॉंच अधिकारी द्वारा प्रतिपादित
जॉंच निष्
कर्ष से आप सहमत हैं, आपके विरूद्ध एकपक्षीय
कार्यवाही करते हुए शास्ति अधिरोपित की जावेगी ।
कृ पया इस अनंतिम कारण बताओ सूचना पत्र की
अभिस्
वीकृ ति दी जावे।"
9. The reply was submitted by the petitioners to the said show cause
notice and at the time of passing the final order by the disciplinary
authority on 18.11.2022, the disciplinary authority inflicted the
punishment of removal from service. I am surprised when disciplinary
authority in a show cause has shown complete agreement with the finding
of enquiry officer and that agreement includes the proposed punishment
also then disciplinary authority could have imposed the punishment which
was proposed but not otherwise. It could be lesser than that of proposed
punishment but not more than that. The proposed punishment was minor
in nature but inflicted punishment was major and as such, I have no
hesitation to say that this act of disciplinary authority is in violation of
principle of natural justice because final show cause contained proposed
punishment and reply to the said show cause was given by the petitioners
without having any knowledge that the said punishment can be enhanced,
therefore, in my opinion, this conduct of the disciplinary authority can be
considered to be in violation of principle of natural justice and that is not
sustainable because punishment of dismissal was not proposed by the
enquiry officer and show cause was issued in consonance with the
proposed punishment and findings given by the enquiry officer. Thus, the
order of disciplinary authority inflicting punishment of dismissal is not
sustainable. Even in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the case of M/s. Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd (supra) and
relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, the observation
made by the Supreme Court is as under :-
"16. It is not a case, with respect to the High Court,
where the disciplinary authority had differed with
the findings of the enquiry officer. The question of
differing with the findings of the enquiry officer by
the disciplinary authority would arise only when the
delinquent officer is exonerated either wholly or in
part of the charges levelled against him, whereas the
disciplinary authority forms a different opinion.
Most of the charges have been found proved, and
the disciplinary authority to that extent did not differ
with the report of the enquiry officer. So far as the
quantum of punishment proposed by the enquiry
officer is concerned if in terms of the rules he [Ed. :
That is, the enquiry officer.] had no authority to do
so, the Managing Director was entitled to apply his
own mind and could come to a conclusion as
regards the quantum of punishment which should be
imposed on the delinquent officer. He in that view
of the matter was not obligated to assign any, far
less sufficient and cogent reasons, as it was not the
requirement of law. In any view of the matter, from
the second notice dated 22-3-1994 issued by the
Managing Director of the Corporation it is evident
that sufficient and cogent reasons have been
assigned therein.
17. A departmental proceeding stricto sensu is not a
judicial proceeding."
(emphasis supplied)
10. In view of the above observation, it is clear that the Supreme Court
has already taken note of the fact that if the show cause was issued
proposing punishment of dismissal before passing the order of dismissal,
the situation would have been different but here in this case, proposed
punishment was something less than that of punishment inflicted and as
such, relying upon the observation made by the Supreme Court, even the
order of punishment of removal from service is not sustainable.
11. Although, the submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioners with respect to violating principle of natural justice in a
decision making process is having no force, except that the disciplinary
authority while issuing final show cause proposed the punishment of
withholding of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect but
inflicted the punishment of removal from service, therefore, the orders
passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority to that
extent are not sustainable and are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted
back to the disciplinary authority to inflict the punishment as proposed by
the enquiry officer to which an agreement was shown by him in the final
show cause notice or the disciplinary authority may proceed further
issuing fresh show cause notice showing disagreement with the proposed
punishment and then pass an appropriate order of punishment.
12. With the aforesaid observation and relying upon the view taken by
the Supreme Court, all the writ petitions are allowed and the orders
impugned are set aside directing respondents to act accordingly and
punishment as proposed by the enquiry officer be imposed or fresh
enquiry from that stage be initiated in accordance with law.
13. Writ Petitions are allowed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
PK
PARITOSH Digitally signed by PARITOSH KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH,
2.5.4.20=43c946b45c8a66c03b68676e788802a41cc03b5b9567caf9
KUMAR
c2c3b981b8cb6596, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=678DC301994B496012A9643D92E6C6335F11A93D
A54F2DFB6E44B8B7A45044FC, cn=PARITOSH KUMAR
Date: 2025.04.08 15:31:01 +05'30'
