Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.C. Sharma, J.
Toofan Singh v. M.P. State Civil Supplies and another
Writ Petitions No.3611 and 4004 of 2007 (Indore);
Decided on 3.11.2014
Held : An order was passed for holding a joint enquiry with the approval of the Managing Director and the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer are based upon the oral as well as documentary evidence ..... The principles of natural justice and fair play have been followed in the matter ..... The opportunity of personal hearing after conclusion of the enquiry cannot be claimed as a matter of right as claimed in the present writ petition ..... The respondents, as the petitioner has been found guilty for the alleged misconduct, has rightly punished and for the loss caused to the State Exchequer recovery has been ordered. (2003)9 SCC 286 discussed. (2006)7 SCC 212, (2007)4 SCC 669 and (2008)5 SCC 569 referred to.
(2) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- scope of interference -- respondents passed order of punishment based on enquiry report -- ample evidence against petitioner -- no violation of any statutory provisions of law -- in facts and circumstances of case -- question of interference does not arise -- petitions dismissed.
Held : In the present case, the respondents have passed the order of punishment based upon the enquiry report, which is again based upon the ample evidence available against the petitioner and, therefore, in light of the aforesaid judgment, the question of interference in the fact and circumstances of the case with the punishment and the order passed by the appellate authority does not arise. (2008)15 SCC 657 and (2012)6 SCC 357 discussed. (2009)15 SCC 620 and (2011)11 SCC 535 referred to.
¼1½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966¼e-iz-½ && fu-14¼23½ && flfoy lsod && lk{; dh laoh{kk djus ds ckn tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk fjiksVZ izLrqr dh xbZ && naM+ vkns’k ;kph ds fo:) O;kid lk{; ij vk/kkfjr && UkSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar rFkk bZekunkjh dk izR;FkhZx.k }kjk vuqlj.k fd;k x;k && tk¡p dh lekfIr ds ckn O;fDrxr lquokbZ ds fy, volj vf/kdkj ds :i esa nkok ugha fd;k tk ldrk && izR;FkhZx.k }kjk vopkj ds nks”k ds fy, Bhd&gh nafM+r fd;k rFkk gkfu ds fy, olwy dk vkns’k fd;k && ;kfpdka, [kkfjt dh xbZA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izc/ak funs’kd ds vuqeksnu ls la;qDr tk¡p djus ds fy, vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k rFkk tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk fudkys x, fu”d”kZ ekSf[kd lkFk&lkFk nLrkosth lk{; ij vk/kkfjr gSA ---------ekeys esa uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kr rFkk bZekunkjh dk vuqlj.k fd;k x;kA ------tk¡p dh lekfIr ds ckn O;fDrxr lquokbZ ds volj ds fy, vf/kdkj ds :i esa nkok ugh fd;k tk ldrk tSlk fd orZeku ;kfpdk esa nkok fd;k x;k gSA -----izR;FkhZx.k] D;ksafd ;kph vfHkdfFkr vopkj ds fy, nks”kh ik;k x;k] u Bhd&gh nafM+r fd;k rFkk jkT; ds [ktkus ds fy, gqbZ gkfu ds fy, olwyh vkns’k fd;k x;kA ¼2003½9 ,l lh lh 286 foosfprA ¼2006½7 ,l lh lh 212] ¼2007½4 ,l lh lh 669 rFkk ¼2008½5 ,l lh lh 569 fufnZ”VA ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && gLr{ksi dh O;kfIr && izR;FkhZx.k us tk¡p fjiksVZ ij vk/kkfjr naM+ dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k && ;kph ds fo:) O;kid lk{; && fof/k ds dkuwuh mica/kks dk vfrØe.k ugha && ekeys ds rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa && gLr{ksi djus dk iz’u mn~Hkwr ugh gksrk && ;kfpdk,a [kkfjt dh xbZA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % orZeku ekeys es] izR;FkhZx.k us tk¡p fjiksVZ ij vk/kkfjr naM+ dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k] tks fd iqu% ;kph ds fo:) miyC/k O;kid lk{; ij vk/kkfjr gS rFkk blfy, iwoksZDr fu.kZ; ds izdk’k es] ekeys ds rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa es] vihy izkf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr naM+ rFkk vkns’k esa gLr{ksi dk iz’u mn~Hkwr ugh gksrkA ¼2008½15 ,l lh lh 657 rFkk ¼2012½6 ,l lh lh 357 foosfprA ¼2009½15 ,l lh lh 620 rFkk ¼2011½11 ,l lh lh 535 fufnZ”VA ¼IkSjk 16
1. Regard being had to the similar controversy involved in these cases, they have been heard analogously together with the consent of the parties and a common order is being passed in the matter. Facts of Writ Petition No.3611/2007 are narrated as under.
2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 7.1.2006 passed by the respondent No.1 as well as the order rejecting his appeal dated 7.5.2007.
3. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as a District Manager, Madhya Pradesh Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. and was posted at Badwani, a charge-sheet was issued on 29.11.2002 under rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Three charges were levelleld against the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted a reply on 12.12.2002 and thereafter an order was passed on 7.4.2003 appointing the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer. Five witnesses were produced on behalf of the department and the petitioner has also submitted the defence statement along with 8 documents. It has further been stated that the Inquiry Officer vide enquiry report dated 19.11.2004 has held that the charges No.1 and 3 were found partly proved and charge No.2 was found fully proved. It has been submitted that the petitioner was served the Inquiry Report along witha show cause notice dated 13.10.2005 to which the reply was filed on 28.10.2005. Thereafter a punishment order was passed on 6.1.2006 by which a punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect was inflicted upon him and a recoveryu of Rs.2,77,462/- has also been inflicted upon him. As it was a case of joint enquiry 75% of the aforesaid amount was to be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner has thereafter preferred an appeal and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by an order dated 7.5.2007 and the same has been communicated vide letter dated 4.6.2007.
4. The petitioner has raised various grounds before this Court and his contention is that no charge-sheet was issued jointly to the petitioner and without there being any order of holding a common enquiry as provided under rule 18 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the proceedings which too took place are void ab initio. The second ground raised is in respect of additional charge-sheet dated 21.3.2003 and the contention is that no Inquiry Officer nor the Presenting Officer was appointed and, therefore, the proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 21.3.2003 are bad in law. It has also been stated that in the departmental enquiry proceedings none of the charges against the petitioner can be proved either on the basis of oral evidence or on the basis of documentary evidence and the present case is a case of perverse findings, hence the order of the punishment and the order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner deserves to be set aside.
5. Another ground has been raised that the misconduct, if any cannot constitute a misconduct in the eyes of law and the charges if any were against Mr. A.K. Parashar, Accountant and the petitioner has not been permitted to lead the evidence in the matter. Only oral statement was recorded and the defence witnesses were not permitted to be examined. The documents mentioned in the charge-sheet were also not given to the petitioner and, therefore, the procedure as prescribed under rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 was not followed.
6. Another ground has been raised that the Inquiry Report dated 19.11.2004 and 31.8.2005 do not contain the contents as required under rule 14(23) of Rules 1966. It has been further stated that the Inquiry Report is based upon the surmises, conjectgure and assumption as well as presumption and, therefore, the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer are perverse findings. It has also been stated that the petitioner was never fo
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
