Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Kumar Chourey vs M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut Vitran ... on 10 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8369
1 WP-20786-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 20786 of 2023
RAKESH KUMAR CHOUREY
Versus
M.P. MADHYA KSHETRA VIDHYUT VITRAN CO.LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajas Pohankar - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Kabeer Paul - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
T h e petition has been filed challenging the appellate order dated
02.06.2023 (Annexure P/9) whereby the order of punishment dated
23.11.2020 (Annexure P/6) inflicting penalty of stoppage of two increments
without cumulative effect on the petitioner, was affirmed.
2. The facts of the case, in substance, are that the petitioner while
working as Assistant Manager (Junior Engineer) at Seoni Malwa (Rural)
Distribution Centre was issued a show cause notice dated 25.10.2018
alleging misconduct on his part in terms of Rule 3 of the M.P. Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1965. The petitioner duly submitted his reply on
07.12.2018. It is submitted that without considering his reply, the impugned
punishment order was issued, imposing penalty of stoppage of two
increments without cumulative effect on the petitioner. Therefore, this
petition has been filed.
3. It is argued that initially a show cause notice was issued to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8369
2 WP-20786-2023
petitioner levelling certain allegations against him which have been refuted
by him by filing a detailed reply in the matter. The authorities after
considering the reply has passed the impugned punishment order dated
23.11.2020.
4. It is further argued that once the charges levelled against the petitioner
were specifically denied in the reply filed by him to the show cause notice,
then the authorities should have conducted an enquiry into the matter and
thereafter should have passed orders. Nothing has been done in the present
case. To substantiate his arguments, petitioner's counsel has placed reliance
on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K.
Bharadwaj vs. Union of India & others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180.
5. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents has denied the
petitioner's contention by filing a detailed reply and submitted that as per the
mandate of the Rules in vogue, only a show cause notice is required to be
given to the concerning official. They have issued a show cause notice
pointing out the charges levelled against the petitioner to which he filed a
reply. After considering his reply, the authorities passed the impugned order
and minor punishment of stoppage of two increment without cumulative
effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Therefore, there is no requirement of
holding a detailed enquiry in the matter. He has placed reliance on the order
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ratan Singh
Silawat vs State of M.P. : WA No. 761 of 2020 decided on 08.09.2020
(Gwalior Bench) wherein while placing reliance on the decision in O.K.
Bhardwaj (supra), it is observed as under :
"4. This court is thus of the considered view that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8369
3 WP-20786-2023
looking to the nature of the charges and the punishment
imposed, there was no requirement of holding full-
fledged enquiry in the matter as contemplated by Rule
14 of 1966 Rules. It can thus be said that the impugned
penalty order does not cause any undue prejudice to
justify a full-fledged enquiry. Therefore there is no need
to assess by way of judicial review as to whether
discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority is
judicial or not".
6. It is contended that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary
proceedings is extremely narrow and limited. On these grounds, he has
prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
8. The record reveals that the show cause notice dated 25.10.2018 was
issued to the petitioner for the negligence in issuing pump connections under
Mukhyamantri Sthayi Krishi Pump Yojana during his tenure in Seoni Malwa
(Rural) from 22.04.2016 to 01.03.2019 and thereby causing loss to the
Company. The detailed reply to the aforesaid was submitted by the petitioner
on 07.12.2018 categorically denying the allegations made against him and
explaining the circumstances. However, the disciplinary authority without
considering the reply submitted by the petitioner as well as without granting
him an opportunity of personal hearing has passed the impugned order dated
23.11.2020. On appeal being preferred, the same was also rejected vide order
dated 02.06.2023. The authorities have to ascertain that how the petitioner
could be held responsible for charges which have been levelled against him.
The judgment which has been relied upon by the respondents' counsel is
factually on a different aspect; on the contrary, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of O.K. Bharadwaj (supra) has categorically observed that if the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8369
4 WP-20786-2023
charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent, then the
minimum requirement is to conduct a detailed enquiry in the matter. In the
case of O.K. Bharadwaj (supra), it is held as under :
"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 justice and the said requirement
cannot be dispensed with."
9. The said requirement of holding an enquiry in such situations cannot
be dispensed with. Under these circumstances, the judgment passed in the
case of O.K. Bharadwaj (supra) is fully applicable to the case of the
petitioner herein. In the present case, the charges which have been levelled
against the petitioner have been replied by him by filing a detailed reply to
the show cause notice and he has virtually denied the charges. Once there is
denial to the charges, then the authorities should have conducted an enquiry
in the matter and it is only thereafter the punishment order could have been
passed. Admittedly, no such document is placed on record to show that any
enquiry was conducted in the matter.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.11.2020 (Annexure P/6)
and order of dismissal of appeal dated 02.06.2023 (Annexure P/9) being
unsustainable are hereby quashed. However, the matter is remanded back to
the disciplinary authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8369
5 WP-20786-2023
stage of filing of reply to the show cause notice and to pass fresh orders after
giving him an opportunity of hearing.
11. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and disposed of. No order as
to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
