Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BENCH
Sujoy Paul, Shailendra Shukla, JJ.
State of M.P. and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Vishnu Prasad Maran and Ors. – Respondents
W.A. No. 1280 of 2020
Decided On : 19-01-2021
Disciplinary Proceedings - Censure - M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 - Rule 14, Rule 15, Rule 9(2)(a), Rule 8(1)(b), Rule 10, Rule 2(f) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Rule 15 of the CCA Rules and the requirement of preparing a discordant note by the disciplinary authority. It also analyzed the applicability of the Pension Rules in imposing punishment on a retired government servant. The court highlighted the principles of natural justice and the right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment also referred to relevant case laws to support its findings.
Fact of the Case:
The employee was served with a charge-sheet and faced disciplinary proceedings. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the employee, but the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of 'censure' without preparing a discordant note. The employee retired, and the department delayed the payment of retiral dues. The court found that the punishment and delay in payment were unjustified.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority failed to satisfy the principles of natural justice and Rule 15 of the CCA Rules. It also concluded that the punishment of 'censure' could not be imposed on a retired government servant under the Pension Rules. The court held that the delay in the disciplinary proceedings amounted to persecution and interfered with the punishment. Additionally, it ruled that the employer was bound to pay interest on retiral dues due to the department's delay.
Issues: 1. Validity of imposing 'censure' without preparing a discordant note. 2. Applicability of Pension Rules in imposing punishment on a retired government servant. 3. Delay in disciplinary proceedings and its impact on the employee. 4. Grant of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of preparing a discordant note by the disciplinary authority and the inapplicability of Rule 10 of the CCA Rules to retired government servants. It also highlighted the right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and the employer's obligation to pay interest on delayed retiral dues.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the findings of the writ court.
JUDGMENT :
Sujoy Paul, J.
1. This intra-court appeal takes exception to the order dated 17.09.2019 passed in W.P. No. 9838/2018, whereby learned Writ Court directed the department to open the sealed cover and give effect to the recommendations for promotion. In addition, learned Writ Court directed to grant interest on delayed payment of retiral dues with further direction to pay arrears of 7th Pay Commission.
2. Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Panel Lawyer assailed the order of learned Writ Court on twin grounds. Firstly, it is argued that the main reason for interference with the punishment of censure dated 13.03.2018 was that against the Enquiry Officer's report, the petitioner was not given any opportunity by issuance of notice by the disciplinary authority. He submits that the disciplinary authority issued a notice along with the Enquiry Officer's report and therefore, this reason for interference on the punishment cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Secondly, learned Writ Court has committed an error in granting interest on delayed payment of retiral dues.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the delay in releasing the retiral dues was because of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. On conclusion of such proceedings by imposition of punishment on 13.03.2018 (Annexure-P/10), the retiral dues were released. Hence, imposition of interest is without there being any justification.
4. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel supported the impugned order.
5. No other point is pressed by the parties. We have heard the parties at length.
6. Before dealing with the points raised, it is apposite to mention the relevant facts. The employee was served with a charge-sheet on 30.07.2010 under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called the "CCA Rules"). The employee denied the charges in toto. Hence, enquiry and presenting officers were appointed. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 03.06.2016. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the respondent No. 1 from the charges. The said report was communicated to the respondent No. 1 with communication dated 22.06.2017. The respondent No. 1 filed response stating that the Enquiry Officer's report is in his favour and he does not wish to say anything more. The original petitioner preferred an application on 05.08.2017 requesting the department to conclude the enquiry expeditiously. The same is followed by notice for demand of justice and other representations. The departmental enquiry ended with a punishment of "censure" on 13.03.2018. The employee retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2017.
7. Learned Writ Court rightly recorded that the Enquiry Officer's report was indeed supplied to the employee but the disciplinary authority has not taken pains to prepare a discordant note and put the employee to notice along with his reasons for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's report.
8. In catena of judgments, the Apex Court opined that findings of the Enquiry Officer are not binding on the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority can disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the basis of material available on record. If the disciplinary authority intends to disagree with the findings, the only course open to him is to prepare a note of disagreement on the basis of evidence on record and furnish the same to the applicant to enable him to show cause against the same. The Apex Court in this regard opined as under in the following judgments:-
"……whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings."
(emphasis supplied)
Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 7
AI
The judgment established the importance of satisfying the principles of natural justice, the application of relevant rules in imposing disciplinary actions on retired government servants, and the obl....
Disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee can continue if initiated during service; defining grave misconduct under pension rules does not require explicit mention in charges, as grave alle....
A disciplinary authority must provide an opportunity for hearing when it disagrees with an enquiry officer's findings, and any punishment not prescribed by statutory rules is without jurisdiction.
Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and unjustified nature of the action by the respondents can lead to the quashing of the punishment order and the direction to refund the deducted pension ....
Inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee undermines the principles of natural justice and warrants quashing the penalty imposed.
Timely initiation and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings are critical; excessive delays can vitiate the proceedings and infringe on the rights of the employee.
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
