Imposition of minor penalty must adhere to the principles of natural justice and consider the employee's reply, as per Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1966 and legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. With the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. Present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 07.07.2018 whereby, the penalty of withholding of one increment with non cumulative effect has been passed against the petitioner by the respondent no. 3. Petitioner is also assailing the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner, being appellate authority whereby, the order passed by Collector district Morena is being upheld.

3. It is alleged that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Teacher in Govt. Primary School Tenhta, Block and District Morena. In the Govt. District Institute of Education Training (DIET) the examinations of D.EL.Ed. was conducted by National Open University Noida between 31.5.2015 to 2.6.2018 in the DIET building Morena, wherein, the petitioner was engaged as an invigilator in the computer room of the examination center. On 1.6.2018, Sub Divisional Officer, Morena has inspected the examination center and two cases of unfair means being done by two candidates were found, on the basis of which, a notice dated 2.6.2018 was issued to the petitioner levying the allegations against him that various chits were found from the students in the examination room wherein, the petitioner was performing his duties as an invigilator and owing to negligency in duties performed by the petitioner such unfair activities were permitted. The notice was received by the petitioner on 2.6.2018 and on the same day, he has submitted detailed reply denying the allegations levied against him. He has filed reply of the notice to respondent no. 3. It is submitted that the reply filed by the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the Collector District Morena and out rightly without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, impugned order has been passed observing that despite notice being issued to the petitioner, he has chosen not to file any response to the show cause notice meaning thereby, he has accepted the allegations levied against him. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10(4) of M.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966, order for withholding of one increments with non cumulative effect has been passed against the petitioner on 07.07.2018. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner to the Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena raising the grounds that without following the principles of natural justice and without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner of the show cause notice, the impugned order has been passed. The appellate authority considering the record has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was negligent towards his duties and the order passed by learned Collector is just and proper and does not call for any interference and accordingly, the same was upheld. It is submitted that the law with respect to imposition of even minor penalty is settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and others as reported in 2001 (9) SCC 180 and in the case of Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2010 (13) SCC 427 and it has been observed that if the reply to the show cause notice is being submitted denying the allegations then in such circumstances, the procedure for imposition of minor penalty should be followed and at least, an inquiry should be conducted into the allegations levied against the employee. He has further relied upon a judgment rendered by coordinate Bench this court in W.P. No. 2652 of 2019 in the case of Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of M.P. dated 10.12.2019 wherein, in similar situation and with respect to the same examination conducted by National Open University Noida levying similar allegations against Rajesh Sharma, a coordinate Bench of this court has allowed the writ petition following the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj (Supra) and Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and order i