Back
2008(1) JLJ 291
Shantanu Kemkar, J.
B.S. Jaiswal v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.7061 of 2003 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 31.10.2007.
(2) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- R.15(2) -- disciplinary authority disagreeing with finding of Inquiry Officer who held delinquent officer not guilty of any charges -- has to inform delinquent officer of tentative reasons and also has to hear him.
In the inquiry the Inquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty of both the charges and held that both the charges and held that both the charges are not proved. The disciplinary authority, after going through the inquiry report dated 6.12.1989 submitted by the Inquiry Officer" disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on both the charges, recorded the finding of guilt of the petitioner in regard to both the charges. [Para 3
Held: Even though rule 15(2) of MPCCA Rules, 1966 is silent about giving of opportunity to the delinquent employee but in case the Inquiry Officer held the employee not guilty of any or all the charges and the disciplinary authority is disagreeing with the findings of Inquiry Officer, it is the requirement of the principles of natural justice for the disciplinary authority to communicate the delinquent employee the tentative reason for disagreeing with the findings of Inquiry Officer. The principles of natural justice will have to be read into rule 15(2) of MPCCA Rules, 1966. In the present case the disciplinary authority having not communicated to the petitioner the tentative reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the impugned order of the disciplinary authority being in violation of principles of natural justice is liable to be quashed and consequently the order of the appellate authority is also liable to be quashed. (1998)7 SCC 84, AIR 1999 SC 3734 and (2003)2 SCC 449 followed. 2007(1) JLJ 429 relied on. JT 1999(8) SC 493 distinguished. [Para 12
(3) Constitution of India -- Arts.311 (2) and 309 -- inquiry authority not finding charges proved against public servant -- disciplinary authority if not agreeing, has to give tentative reasons therefor and hearing opportunity -- it is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away even by rules made under Art.309. AIR 1999 SC 3734 followed. [Para 10
¼1½ uSlfxZd U;k; && tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk vipkjh vf/kdkjh dks fdlh vFkok lHkh vkjksiksa ds fy, nks"kh vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k x;k && iz‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk fHkUu n`f"Vdks.k viukuk izLrkfor && vipkjh vf/kdkjh dks vuafre dkj.kksa dh tkudkjh nsuk gksxh rFkk mls lquuk Hkh gksxkA ¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 15¼2½ && iz‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh tk¡p vf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kZ ls] ftlus vipkjh vf/kdkjh dks fdlh Hkh vkjksi dk nks"kh vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k] folEer && vipkjh vf/kdkjh dks vuafre dkj.kksa dh tkudkjh nsuk gksrh gS rFkk mls lquuk Hkh gksrk gSA tk¡p esa tk¡p vf/kdkjh us ;kph dks nksuksa vkjksiksa dk nks"kh ugha ik;k rFkk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd nksuksa vkjksi lkfcr ugha gSA tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 6-12-1989 dks izLrqr tk¡p fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i‘pkr~ iz‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh us] nksuksa vkjksiksa ij tk¡p vf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kZ ls folEer gksrs gq,] nksuksa vkjksiksa ds laca/k esa ;kph dh nksf"krk vfHkfyf[kr dhA ¼iSjk 3 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;|fi e-iz- flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 dk fu;e 15¼2½ vipkjh deZpkjh dks volj fn, tkus ds ckjs esa ewd gS fdarq tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk deZpkjh dks dksbZ vFkok lHkh vkjksiksa dk nks"kh vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd, tkus rFkk iz‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh tk¡p vf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kZ ls folEer gksus dh n‘kk esa] uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dh vis{kk gS fd iz‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk vipkjh deZpkjh dks tk¡p vf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kZ ls folEer gksus ds vuafre dkj.k lwfpr fd, tk,¡A uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar e-iz- flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ds fu;e 15¼2½ esa i<+s tkuk gksaxsA bl ekeys esa iz‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk tk¡p vf/kdkjh ds fu‘d‘kksZa ls folEer gksus ds vuafre dkj.kksa dh lwpuk ;kph dks ugha fn, tkus ds dkj.k] iz‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh dk vk{ksfir vkns‘k uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa ds vfrØe.k esa gksus ds dkj.k vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk ifj.kkeLo:i vihy izkf/kdkjh dk vkns‘k Hkh vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA ¼1998½7 ,l lh lh 84] , vkb vkj 1999 ,l lh 3734 rFkk ¼2003½2 ,l lh lh 449 vuqljfrA 2007¼1½ ts ,y ts 429 voyafcrA ts Vh 1999¼8½ ,l lh 493 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 12 ¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-311¼2½ rFkk 309 && tk¡p izkf/kdkjh }kjk yksd lsod ds fo:) vkjksi lkfcr ugha ik, x, && iz‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh dks ;fn og lEer ugha gS rc] mlds vuafre dkj.k nsuk gksrs gSa rFkk lquokbZ dk volj fn;k tkuk gksrk gS && ;g lkafo/kkfud vf/kdkj gS tks vuq-309 ds v/khu cuk, x, fu;eksa }kjk Hkh Nhuk ugha tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1999 ,l lh 3734 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 10
1. The petitioner had filed OA No.2679/1991 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short "the Tribunal") challenging the order dated 14.2.1990 (Annexure A-10) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Balaghat. On abolition of the Tribunal the said OA has been transferred for adjudication to this Court and on its transfer has been renumbered by Writ Petition No.706/2003.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Forester in the Forest Department of the State of M.P. While he was posted as Range Assistant, Chouria circle in East Lanji a charge-sheet dated 11.8.1989 was issued to him levelling following two charges against him.
(a) While posted at Chouria circle on 11.3.1989 he allowed five persons to carry Bullock Cart wood load by illegally receiving Rs.50/- for each Bullock Cart.
(b) While he was posted at Chouria circle on 11.3.1989 he allowed three persons to use wrong names for taking out Bullock Cart load of wood by accepting illegally Rs.50/- per Bullock Cart.
3. Dissatisfied with the reply of the charge-sheet submitted by the petitioner a disciplinary inquiry was conducted against him for the aforesaid charges of misconduct. The Inquiry Officer after conclusion of the inquiry submitted the inquiry report dated 6.12.1989 before the disciplinary authority. In the inquiry the Inquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty of both the charges and held that both the charges are not proved. The disciplinary authority, after going through the inquiry report dated 6.12.1989 submitted by the Inquiry Officer, disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on both the charges, recorded the finding of guilt of the petitioner in regard to both the charges and imposed penalty of reduction of pay of the petitioner to the minimum of the pay-scale for a period of ten years and further ordered that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any increment during the said period of ten years and the period of suspension for all purposes shall be treated as period of suspension vide its order dated 14.2.1990 (Annexure A-10).
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, Conservator of Forest. The appellate authority vide order dated 3.11.1990 (Annexure A1) reduced the penalty imposed against the petitioner holding it to be excessive and substituted the penalty by ordering that the pay-scale of the petitioner be fixed to the minimum of the pay-scale for a period of five years and that during this period he shall not be entitled for any increment. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the OA as aforesaid.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record pertaining to disciplinary inquiry produced by the respondents at the time of hearing.
6. The contention of the petitioner is that the Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 6.12.1989 held that both the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. In the circumstances, if the disciplinary authority was not in agreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer he was required to communicate the petitioner 'the tentative reasons for disagreeing with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and the petitioner was required to be given an opportunity to explain and persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the Inquiry Officer. Having not done so the order of the disciplinary authority is violative of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contention the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Mishra [(1998)7 SCC 84], Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharastra and another [AIR 1999 SC 3734], State Bank of India and others v. K.P. Narayanan Kutty [(2003)2 SCC 449] and a judgment of this Court in case of Ram Prasad Mandai v. Regional Manager, Central Bank of India [2007(1) JLJ 429=(2006)3 MPHT 93].
7. The respondents placing reli
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
