ORDER

1. Vide order dated 1.9.2020, the respondents/State were granted time to file return, failing which their right to file return shall stand forfeited automatically. Despite that, learned Panel Lawyer is again seeking time to file return, whereas learned counsel for the petitioner submits that return of the respondents is not required in the matter because he is confining his arguments to the legal aspect involved in the matter, therefore, this petition may be heard on the basis of facts mentioned in the petition itself.

2. Considering the aforesaid, this petition is heard finally.

3. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 11.7.2013 (Annexure-P/4) and 12.5.2017 (Annexure-P/7). Vide order dated 11.7.2013 (Annexure-P/4), the respondents inflicted minor penalty of withholding of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect upon the petitioner and vide order dated dated 12.5.2017 (Annexure-P/7), the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner wherein he had assailed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

4. For resolving the controversy involved in the case necessary facts adumbrated in a nutshell are that the petitioner was a Medical Officer and at the time of his posting in Community Health Center, Gangev, Rewa, an order of suspension dated 2.5.2013 (Annexure-P/1) was issued placing him under suspension for the reason that he had committed misconduct as has been defined under rule 3 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (in short the ‘Rules, 1965’) and, therefore, disciplinary action was proposed against him. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 5.6.2013 (Annexure-P/2) levelling two charges against him in which an enquiry was proposed under rule 14(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short the ‘Rules, 1966’) against the petitioner. The said charge-sheet was communicated to the petitioner asking him to submit a written explanation/reply within a period of 15 days, otherwise the respondents would have no option but to proceed ex parte against him. Though the charge-sheet and its covering memo contained the date 5.6.2013 but the same was served upon the petitioner on 20.6.2013. The respondents thereafter passed an order on 11.7.2013 mentioning therein that despite granting time of 15 days for filing reply to the charge-sheet, the same was submitted by him on 27.6.2013 after expiry of the stipulated period, therefore, the same was not taken into consideration and decision was taken to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. Thereafter, instead of completing the enquiry; it was decided to inflict penalty of withholding of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect upon the petitioner. The suspension of the petitioner was also revoked holding that during the period of suspension, he would be entitled to get the subsistence allowance only. The reply to the charge-sheet submitted by the petitioner is also available on record as Annexure-P/3 and this fact has also been acknowledged by the Disciplinary Authority in its order dated 11.7.2013 which is impugned in this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner proposing regular departmental enquiry, but even after filing the reply of the charge-sheet, without conducting any regular departmental enquiry, minor penalty of withholding of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. He submits that once a charge-sheet has been issued and regular departmental enquiry is proposed under rule 14 of the Rules, 1966, then that cannot be ended with a minor penalty. If that is to be done, then the Authority is under obligation to issue fresh show-cause and impose minor penalty. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the peti