Back
2012 Supreme(MP) 910
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
K.K.Trivedi, J.
K.C.Bhargava - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Another - Respondent
W. P. No. 24146 of 2003 (O. A. No. 59-1999)
Decided On : 17-07-2012
For petitioner: Hemant Shrivastava
For respondents:Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate
The judgment established the importance of considering an employee's physical condition and the proportionality of penalties in disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Departmental Enquiry - M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 - M.P. Vibhagiya Jaanch (Sakchhiyon Ka Hazir Karaya Jana Tatha Dastavejon Ka Pesh Karaya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1979 - Violation of Natural Justice - Bias - Disproportionate Penalty
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of an order dismissing his appeal against a compulsory retirement order after a departmental enquiry. He argued that he was not physically fit to carry out a transfer order due to a permanent disability caused by an injury sustained while on duty. The respondents contended that the disciplinary procedure was followed and the petitioner's misconduct was proven.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's injury and physical condition were not considered when issuing the transfer order and conducting the departmental enquiry. It held that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by violations of natural justice and bias. The court also found the penalty of compulsory retirement to be disproportionate to the proven misconduct.
Issues: Misconduct in departmental enquiry, Violation of natural justice, Bias, Disproportionate penalty
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's physical condition and the circumstances of his injury were not properly considered in the disciplinary proceedings, leading to violations of natural justice and bias. It also established that a penalty must be proportionate to the proven misconduct.
Final Decision: The court quashed the penalty and appellate orders, directed the petitioner to be treated in service for the period of compulsory retirement, and ordered the payment of salary, allowances, and revised pension. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of with no order as to costs.
ORDER :-
This petition was originally filed as Original Application in the M. P. Administrative Tribunal Bench at Bhopal. After closure of the Tribunal, the Original Application has been transmitted to this Court and has been registered as writ petition.
2. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the validity of order dated 7-1-1998, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment has been dismissed as also the order of punishment dated 14-12-1996, by which the petitioner was compulsory retired after holding a departmental enquiry. Mainly, it is contended by the petitioner that while he was in service, working on the post of Motor Transport Officer, was assigned security duty in the convoy of the Chief Minister of the State. He suffered an injury on his left leg on account of accident, while performing such duties and, was admitted in the hospital and was referred by the State Government to the Bombay Hospital where he was treated. The petitioner was advised to take complete rest. In fact, on account of such injury and infection, the petitioner suffered a permanent disability of shortening of the leg. He was not in physical condition to carry out the order of transfer issued in his respect. The fact that the petitioner was under treatment and was not physically fit to resume the duty, was well within the knowledge of the respondents, yet when an order of transfer was issued, even after submission of his application, instead of taking a proper action, a show cause notice was issued to him calling his explanation as to why he should not be punished for disobedience of the orders of the superior authorities. The reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner and instead of closing the matter, the charge-sheet was issued to him and thereafter a departmental enquiry was conducted. The petitioner has made the application that the doctors who have treated him be called as defence witnesses for the purposes of proving his defence, but this was not done and without affording any opportunity in that respect, a severe penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to prove his defence in appropriate manner. The enquiry itself was not conducted in appropriate manner, inasmuch as, the appointment of Presenting Officer was not done. The Enquiry Officer himself examined the witnesses which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. In fact, the statutory provisions of the relevant Act and the Rules were not complied with and an enquiry report was drawn. Though these facts were brought to the notice of the respondents authorities, yet instead of exonerating the petitioner, such a punishment was imposed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was not considered in accordance to the provisions of the Rules and, as such, the appeal of the petitioner was also not properly decided. On this count, it is contended that the orders impugned are bad in law and are liable to be quashed.
3. A return has been filed by the respondents in the Original Application before the Tribunal contending that the procedure as laid down under the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules of 1966 for short) was duly followed. It was proved that there was a non-compliance of the statutory provisions of the M. P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 and, as such, the petitioner has committed a misconduct. Since such a misconduct was proved taking into account the gravity of the charges levelled on the petitioner, the order was rightly passed by the disciplinary authority. The appeal of the petitioner was appropriately considered and thereafter the order was passed by the appellate authority. It is further contended by the respondents that the scope of judicial review is restricted to the effect whether any bias was caused to the petitioner or not and since it has been held by this Court i
