[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Preeti Barya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10592
1 WP-18109-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
WRIT PETITION No. 18109 of 2023
PREETI BARYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Upendra Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner
Shri Narottam Sharma - Advocate for respondents.
Reserved on : 11-03-2026
Pronounced on : 31-03-2026
ORDER
The petitioner has invoked Article 226 of Constitution of India
challenging the order, dated 06.03.2023, (Annexure P/1) whereby
punishment of withholding annual grade increment for one year without
cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.4.50 lakh has been imposed upon the
petitioner. She has also challenged the order, dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure
P/2) whereby her appeal filed against the punishment order, has been
dismissed.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner is
substantively holding the post of Deputy General Manager and was posted at
SCADA Centre, City Circle, Gwalior when the charge sheet in question was
issued to her. The charges levelled against her relate to the period from
09.01.2018 to 08.02.2019, during which period the petitioner was posted at
RMT Lab., Gwalior and was given additional charge of Area Store, Gwalior.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10592
2 WP-18109-2023
3 . A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.09.2020
(Annexure P/3) asking her to explain her act of not getting Bank Guarantee
(BG) verified from Bank and not obtaining original BG from the concerned
firm and also regarding not taking timely steps for encashment of BG in
relation to another firm. She submitted her reply on 28.09.2020 (Annexure
P/4). The reply since was not found satisfactory, the Company decided to
conduct departmental enquiry against the petitioner.
4. A charge sheet was accordingly issued to the petitioner vide memo,
dated 18.04.2022, (Annexure P/7) wherein two charges were levelled against
her. It is revealed from records, that the petitioner failed to submit her reply
to the charge sheet. Accordingly, one Mr. P.K. Hajela, General Manager,
Regional Office, Gwalior, was appointed as enquiry officer while Mr. R.C.S.
Chauhan, Accounts Officer was appointed as presenting officer. The enquiry
was conducted by the enquiry officer and report was submitted by him on
02.01.2023 (Annexure P/8). Both the charges were held proved against the
petitioner. A copy of enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner vide
memo, dated 03.01.2023, and she was asked to submit her explanation to the
findings recorded by enquiry officer. The petitioner submitted her
explanation on 24.01.2023.
5 . The disciplinary authority then passed the impugned order, dated
06.03.2023, thereby imposing punishment of withholding annual grade
increment for one year without cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.4.50
lakh, towards loss caused to the company, on the petitioner. The petitioner
challenged the order of punishment by filing appeal which came to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10592
3 WP-18109-2023
dismissed by appellate authority vide order, dated 05.07.2023. The present
writ petition has accordingly been filed by petitioner challenging the
punishment orders.
6 . The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned
punishment imposed on petitioner is illegal and liable to be set aside. As per
his submission, the petitioner was posted at Area Store only on 09.01.2018.
In relation to charge no.1, she took all steps for securing possession of
original BG. The reminders were given to the firm for submitted original
BG. Regarding charge no.2, the petitioner sent letters to firm concerned for
extending the BG. The learned counsel also submitted that one Ms. Sadhna
Bhaskar was previously discharging duties in RCA Cell and she was required
to inform the petitioner about non-submission original Bank Guarantee.
However, Ms. Bhaskar did not inform the petitioner about the same. It is his
submission that as soon as the petitioner came to know about the same, she
immediately made correspondence with firms.
7 . The learned counsel also submitted that the recovery of amount
from the petitioner is also illegal inasmuch as there is no loss caused to the
respondent Company. It is his submission that the amount could be recovered
from defaulter firms, however, instead of doing so, the respondent Company
directed recovery of amount from the petitioner. He further submitted that
the petitioner raised specific ground in this regard before the disciplinary
authority as well as appellate authority, however, both the authorities failed
to consider the same and mechanically passed the impugned orders. The
learned counsel thus submitted that there is no material available on record to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10592
4 WP-18109-2023
hold the charges proved against the petitioner. He thus prayed for setting
aside of impugned orders and for grant of consequential benefits to the
petitioner.
8 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents supported
the impugned action of respondents. As per his submission, the petitioner
while working at Area Store, was required to obtain original BG from the
firm. It was also not verified from the Bank. The original Bank Guarantee
was not obtained in time and when the Bank Guarantee was sought to be
encashed, the same was found to be forged. In relation to charge no.2, he
submitted that huge amount was due to the firm and the Bank Guarantee
ought to have been encashed during its validity. However, instead, the
petitioner made correspondence with the firm asking it to renew the Bank
Guarantee.
9 . The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was working on
high post of Deputy General Manager and was expected to be vigilant about
obtaining original Bank Guarantee and submission of Bank Guarantee for
encashment in time. However, she failed to act accordingly in the interest of
respondent Company. It is his submission that the negligence on the part of
petitioner has caused loss to the Company. The learned counsel also
submitted that the allegation made against Ms.Bhaskar during the course of
arguments, was not infact the defence of the petitioner in enquiry. Rather,
she justified her act by stating that the letter and reminders were given to the
concerned firms. The learned counsel submitted that the findings of fact have
been recorded by two authorities and such findings are not open to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10592
5 WP-18109-2023
interference by this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review. He thus
prayed for dismissal of petition.
10. No other point is raised by learned counsel for the parties.
11. Considered the arguments and perused the records.
12. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned action by pointing
out any defect in departmental enquiry. It is her submission that the charges
are not proved against her. Thus, before dealing with the submissions made
by learned counsel for parties, it is profitable to refer to the Apex Court
judgment rendered in the case of Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran reported
in (2015)2 SCC 610 , has defined the jurisdiction of this Court while dealing
with disciplinary matters under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The
Court held as under:
"13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the
High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the
same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to
be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience."
13. Thus, under Article 226 of Indian Constitution, this Court would
not re-appreciate the evidence and would not interfere, even if there is some
material available on record to justify the action taken against the petitioner.
This Court also would not go into sufficiency and reliability of evidence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10592
6 WP-18109-2023
14. Vide charge sheet, dated 18.04.2022, following two charges were
levelled against the petitioner:
आरोप मांक 01
यह क, मेसस के.एल.डब यू फैब भोपाल ारा ट .एस.-216 के
व रािश . 4.00 लाख ( . चार लाख मा ) क
ए सटे डे ड गारं ट बी.जी. कमांक 0054ILG000814 तुत
क गई । उ बैक गार ट को आपके ारा संबंिधत बक से न
तो स या पत कराया गया और ना ह उ बी.जी. क मूल
ित ा क गई। फल व प, उ बी.जी. नगद करण के
समय फज पाये जाने से कंपनी को . 4.00 लाख क ित
का रत हुई ।
इस कार, ीमती ीित बरै या, उप महा बंधक ारा द.
09.01.2018 से द. 08.02.2019 तक े ीय भ डार वािलयर म
पद थ रहते हुये अपने पद य दािय व का िनवहन न कर
म डल/कंपनी ारा िनधा रत मापद ड / आचरण सं हता एवं म. .
िस वल सेवा (आचरण) िनयम 1965 के िनयम 03 का उ लंघन
कया जाकर वयं को गंभीर अनुशासना मक कायवाह का पा
बनाया गया ।
आरोप कंमांक 02
यह क, मै. िशवा इड ज िनयर वायपास ए.बी. रोड गुना
ारा ट .एस.-216 के व ए सटे डे ड गार ट बी.जी.
कमांक 06790100000229 दं . 02.05.2016 तुत क गई
थी जसक व ता रत अविध द. 01.05.2018 दावा अविध
स हत थी। उ फम के व ट .एस.-216 म े ीय भ डार
वािलयर एवं गुना क कुल दे यता रािश . 93,95,772/-
लं बत होने के बाद भी इस बक गार ट को संबंिधत बक से
दावा अविध पूण होने पर आपके ारा लेखािधकार को
नगद करण हे तु अवगत नह ं कराया गया एवं कंपनी को रािश
5.00 लाख क ित का रत हुई ।
इस कार, ीमती ीित बरै या, उप महा बंधक ारा द.
09.01.2018 से द. 08.02.2019 तक े ीय भ डार वािलयर म
पद थ रहते हुये अपने पद य दािय व का िनवहन न कर म डल /
कंपनी ारा िनधा रत मापद ड/आचरण सं हता एवं म. . िस वल
सेवा (आचरण) िनयम 1965 के िनयम 03 का उ लंघन कया
जाकर वयं को गंभीर अनुशासना मक कायवाह का पा बनाया
गया ।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10592
7 WP-18109-2023
15. The petitioner did not submit reply to the charge sheet. However,
she gave reply to show cause notice served to her earlier.
Charge No.1
In relation to charge no.1, it was alleged against the petitioner that M/s
K.L.W. Fab. submitted extended BG for Rs.4 lakh. The said BG was neither
verified from Bank nor was the original of the same obtained from the said
firm. When the BG was presented to the Bank for encashment, it was found
to be forged. It was also alleged that the Accounts Officer of Regional
Office, Gwalior, informed the petitioner about the same, however, she failed
to take any action against the firm.
16. The defence of petitioner, as per reply, dated 28.09.2020, was that
she assumed charge in Area Store on 09.01.2018. The firm has submitted
two BGs valid upto 03.06.2018 and the original of the same were in RCA
Cell. She stated that the firm was regularly being asked to extend the BG vide
letter, dated 07.11.2017 & 07.12.2017. These two letters relate to period
prior to petitioner's taking charge of Area Store. She then referred to e-mail
dated 12.09.2018 whereby the firm forwarded copy of extended BG. The
petitioner was required to get this verified from the Bank at this stage itself.
The petitioner then wrote to firm on 05.12.2018 asking for original extended
BG. Reminder was sent on 01.02.2019.
17. The petitioner has further stated that the firm sent an e-mail on
05.02.2019 to Chief General Manager of the respondent Company
requesting for some time to submit original BG. Surprisingly, in this letter
the firm has accepted that due to financial crisis, it could not submit extended
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10592
8 WP-18109-2023
BG. The petitioner should have realised that the BG submitted vide mail
dated 12.09.2018 is forged. The petitioner still wrote to firm on 08.02.2019
asking it to positively submit original BG by 10.03.2019. The petitioner was
thereafter transferred from Area Store on 08.02.2019. During enquiry, the
petitioner alleged that Ms.Bhaskar brought this to her notice after lapse of 84
days. But no action was taken against Ms.Bhaskar.
18. The enquiry officer has recorded a finding that the petitioner, at no
point of time, took steps for verification of extended BG from the Bank. She
did not do so even after when it was brought to her notice by Ms.Bhaskar.
The documents referred to by petitioner relate to her correspondence with
the firm, but there is no document to show that any correspondence was
made to the Bank for verification of BG.This factual finding has been
accepted by disciplinary as well as appellate authority.
1 9 . The learned counsel for respondents has produced before this
Court the record of enquiry to show that the action was taken against
Ms.Bhaskar also.
Charge no.2
In charge no.2, it is alleged against the petitioner that one M/s Shiva
Industries has presented extended BG for Rs.5 lakh on 02.05.2016. It was
valid till 01.05.2018. The said firm owes dues to the tune of Rs.93,95,772/-.
Still the petitioner did not take any step for encashment of this BG till the
time for lodging claim expired. She wrote to Bank for encashment of BG
after expiry of time on 30.08.2018.
20. In reply to this charge, the petitioner referred to correspondence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10592
9 WP-18109-2023
made with the firm asking to extend the BG. However, the charge levelled
against her was regarding not lodging claim for encashment of BG during
validity period. There is no reply given by petitioner in this regard.
21. For this charge also, the petitioner alleged that Ms.Bhaskar brought
this to her notice after lapse of 84 days. But no action was taken against
Ms.Bhaskar. However, as noted above, the action was taken against
Ms.Bhaskar also.
22. Thus, the charges have been held proved against the petitioner
based upon appreciation of evidence collected during course of enquiry. The
finding of enquiry officer may not be very happily worded, as alleged by
petitioner's counsel. However, the findings are borne out from records. In
view of Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of P. Gunasekaran
(supra), the findings when based upon some material, would not call for
interference by this Court.
23. Before the appellate authority, the petitioner has submitted that the
recovery can still be made from the defaulter firms, however, instead of
doing so, the respondent Company has directed recovery of amount from the
petitioner. The ground raised by petitioner has not been accepted by appellate
authority, and rightly so. Merely because the amount can be recovered from
the defaulter firms, the petitioner cannot be absolved from her responsibility.
She was required to get the BG verified as soon as it was received in the
officer which she failed to do. The BG was ultimately found to be forged.
For second charge also, she failed to take steps for encashment of BG. Thus,
the punishment imposed on her is also found to be justified.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10592
10 WP-18109-2023
2 4 . In view of discussion made, the impugned orders, dated
06.03.2023 & 05.07.2023 do warrant any interference by this Court. The
same are upheld accordingly. The petition fails and is hereby, dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
