The main legal point established is that the imposition of a minor penalty must comply with the provisions of Rule 16 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 18/12/2018 passed by respondent no. 2 in case No. 283/2017-18/Appeal (CCA) and order dated 7/7/2018 passed by respondent no. 3 in case No. SC-2/Exam/2018, by which a minor penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect has been imposed.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner is holding the post of Sahayak Adhyapak and he was appointed as Invigilator on 1/6/2018 in Computer Room, Examination Center DIET Morena where cases of unfair means were found and accordingly, a notice dated 2/6/2018 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 3, which was replied by the petitioner denying the allegation regarding his negligence in the discharge of duties. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 came to a conclusion that the petitioner was negligent in discharging his duties and, therefore, punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect was imposed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed.

3. Challenging the orders passed by the authorities below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner had denied the allegations in his reply to the show-cause notice dated 2/6/2018, therefore, the respondents should have conducted a departmental enquiry into the allegations even for the purpose of imposition of minor penalty and to buttress his contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India and others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 and in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India and others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the respondents after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner had come to a conclusion that he was discharging his duties as an Invigilator and one case of cheating was found in the room of the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Collector, District Morena on 2/6/2018 had issued a notice to the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as an Invigilator in Examination Center No. 32302004, DIET, Morena and on surprise inspection carried out by SDO (Revenue) Morena on 1/6/2018, one case of cheating was found in the room of the petitioner. The petitioner filed his reply and submitted that he was performing his duties in Computer Room and he had found six cases of cheating, however, some of the students had hidden the slips at such places which could not be found during general physical inspection. In most of the cases of cheating, the students were women and in absence of any lady Invigilator, it was very difficult for him to physically screen the women candidates and accordingly, it was pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited (supra) has held as under:-

"36. The appellant gave a reply to the show cause notice but in the order of the third respondent by which registration certificate of the appellant was cancelled, no reference was made to the reply of the appellant, except saying that it is not satisfactory. The cancellation order is totally a non-speaking one.........."

The Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj (supra) has held as under:-

"3................... Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed w