Madhya Pradesh High Court
Roop Singh Bhadoriya vs Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut ... on 8 January, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Sunita Yadav, Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT APPEAL No. 1736 of 2023
ROOP SINGH BHADORIYA
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO
LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P. Singh - Advocate for appellant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on 12.12.2024
Delivered on 08.01.2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Per: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
The instant intra Court Appeal filed under Section 2(1)of the
Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005 has been preferred by the appellant challenging the
validity of the order dated 08.09.2023 passed in W.P. No.7788/2011 by
learned Single Bench wherein challenge was made to the order dated
21.04.2011 whereby the petitioner was subjected to penalty of
withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect, was
affirmed and the petition was dismissed.
2. The aforesaid order has been assailed on the ground that the
impugned order in the writ petition was passed while exercising power
arbitrarily without considering objections and without conducting any fact
finding inquiry, therefore, imposition of such penalty which can be said to
be based on extraneous consideration, was in gross violation and
contravention of the provisions as contemplated under Rule 16 of The
M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, was
issued in a mechanical manner without applying its own mind and the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bharadwaj Vs.
Union of India and others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 as well as
Food Corporation of India Vs. A. Prahalada Rao reported in (2001) 1
SCC 165, learned Single Judge fell in the same trap and dismissed the
petition holding that no injury could be said to have been caused to the
petitioner while not holding the departmental inquiry as the petitioner was
inflicted with minor punishment of stoppage of annual increment for one
year without cumulative effect, therefore, petitioner could not be said to
have been adversely affected as the same would not have caused any
effect on his pensionary benefits.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a solitary ground that
when the present appellant had specifically denied the charges as levelled
against him by way of show cause notice purportedly issued under Rule 16
of The M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
then it was imperative for the respondents to have hold departmental
inquiry and in support of the aforesaid contention, reliance was placed in
the matter O.K. Bharadwaj (supra), judgment passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Bholeran Soni Vs. Union of India and
Ors. in W.P. No. 3021/2014 on 09.01.2015, Roop Singh Bhadoriya Vs.
Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company (W.A.
No.1673/2018) on 30.01.2019.
4. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents even after
service of the notice as is evident from the report of process server dated
01.10.2024.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record as
well as the impugned order.
6. Learned Single Judge while considering the matter had placed
reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Food Corporation of India (supra), judgments of Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. C.P. Singh
reported in 2004 (2) MPJR 252, Ratan Singh Silawat Vs. The State of
M.P. & Ors. passed in W.A. No.761/2020 and has observed that it is the
discretion of departmental authority in such cases where minor
punishment is intended to be inflicted whether to hold departmental
inquiry or not and as it differs from case to case, therefore, it is not
automatic. It has also been observed that the said discretion is to be
exercised reasonably and objectively and it should not be guided by the
arbitrariness and in that context, it has been held that since the petitioner
was inflicted with minor punishment of stoppage of annual increment for
one year without cumulative effect, therefore, it cannot be said that any
adversity would be caused in pensionary benefits of the petitioner and in
that context, it was concluded that non-holding the departmental inquiry
would cause no injury to the petitioner.
7. So far as the legal conclusion arrived at by learned Single Judge
in the light of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of
Food Corporation of India (supra) and the decision of Division Bench
of this Court in C.P. Singh (supra) and Ratan Singh Silawat (supra), it
can be said to be proper but when it is seen in the context of the order
dated 21.04.2011 which was the order impugned in the writ petition, the
conclusion arrived at cannot be said to be sustainable as the Division
Bench of this Court in the matter of C.P. Singh (supra) had made a
distinction with regard to position after decision in Food Corporation of
India (supra) and has observed as under:-
Position after decision in FCI: Where the Rules give a
discretion to the Disciplinary Authority to either hold a summary
enquiry or regular enquiry, it is not possible to say that the
Disciplinary Authority should direct only a regular enquiry, when an
employee denies the charge or requests for an inquiry. Even in such
cases, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to decide, for
reasons to be recorded, whether a regular enquiry should be held or
not. If he decides not to hold a regular enquiry and proceeds to decide
the matter summarily the employee can always challenge the minor
punishment imposed on the ground that the decision not to hold a
inquiry was an arbitrary decision. In that event, the Court or Tribunal
will in exerciser of power of judicial review, examine whether the
decision of the Disciplinary Authority not to hold an enquiry was
arbitrary. If the Court/Tribunal holds that the decision was arbitrary
then such decision not to hold an enquiry and the consequential
imposition of punishment will be quashed. If the Court/Tribunal holds
that the decision was not arbitrary, then the imposition of minor
penalty will stand.
It is also possible to read the decisions in Bharadwaj and FCI
harmoniously, if Bharadwaj is read as stating a general principle,
without reference to any specific rules, that it is incumbent upon the
Disciplinary Authority to hold a regular enquiry, even for imposing a
minor penalty, if the charge is factual and the charge is denied by the
employee. On the other hand, the decision in FCI holding that the
Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to dispense with a regular
enquiry, even where the charge is factual and the employee denies the
charge, is with reference to the specific provisions of a Rule vesting
such discretion.
There is yet another aspect which requires to be noticed. Where
the penalty to be imposed though termed as minor, is likely to
materially affect the employee either financially or career-wise then it
is not possible to dispense with a regular enquiry. In fact, this is
evident from sub-rule (2) of Rule-11 which says that where the penalty
to be imposed, though termed as minor penalty, involves withholding
of increments which is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension
or special contribution to provident fund, or withholding of increments
of pay for a period exceeding three years or withholding of increments
of pay for a period exceeding three years or withholding of increments
of pay with cumulative effect, then an enquiry as contemplated under
Rule-9 (6) to (25) is a must. Thus, categorization of penalties into
'major' and 'minor' penalties, by itself may not really be determinative
of the question whether a regular enquiry is required or not.
8. The Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in specific terms
had observed that the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to decide,
for reasons to be recorded, whether a regular enquiry should be held or
not. If he decides not to hold a regular enquiry and proceeds to decide the
matter summarily the employee can always challenge the minor
punishment imposed on the ground that the decision not to hold a inquiry
was an arbitrary decision. In that event, the Court or Tribunal will in
exercise of power of judicial review has to examine whether the decision
of the Disciplinary Authority not to hold an enquiry was arbitrary or not.
Further, if the Court/Tribunal holds that the decision was arbitrary then
such decision not to hold an enquiry and the consequential imposition of
punishment will be quashed. Thus, it is imperative and as has been held by
learned Single Judge that the discretion which is vested in the authority is
to be exercised reasonably and objectively and it should not be guided by
arbitrariness, it was required for the disciplinary authority to have
recorded reasons for not conducting regular inquiry but from bare perusal
of the order dated 21.04.2011 (Annexure P/1), it would be evident that no
such satisfaction has been recorded as to why departmental inquiry was
not required to be held.
9. Learned Single Judge has also gone into the aspect that since the
petitioner was inflicted with minor penalty of stoppage of annual
increment for one year without cumulative effect, therefore, he would
receive the benefit of grant of increment after the period of one year is
over, therefore, no adversity would have caused in the pensionary benefits
in the matter also does not appears to be correct proposition as definitely,
due to stoppage of annual increment for one year, the petitioner would not
only suffer less payment for the rest of the service period less by one
increment till his retirement but would also in proportionate would receive
plesser payment of retiral benefits including gratuity, pension, etc.
Similarly, he will be also losing proportionate amount in the contribution
to provident fund, thus, financial loss would be caused to the appellant,
therefore, in that event, when the appellant had denied the allegations
levelled against him in the show cause notice, the department ought to
have conducted the departmental inquiry. Thus, in the aforesaid context,
the order dated 08.09.2023 passed in W.P. No.7788/2011 by learned Single
Judge does not appears to be in-conformity with the legal position and the
same is hereby set-aside.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 21.04.2011 whereby punishment of
stoppage of annual increment for one year without cumulative effect was
inflicted upon the petitioner is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted
back to the disciplinary authority to conduct departmental inquiry and
thereafter pass necessary orders.
(SUNITA YADAV) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
ojha
