2021 Supreme(MP) 203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Nandita Dubey, J.
Ramkaran Dwivedi v. State of M.P. & others
Writ petition No. 9186 of 2006 (Jabalpur); Decided on 11.2.2021

Headnote:

¼1½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku && vuq- 226 && U;kf;d leh{kk dh O;kfIr rFkk lhek && foÒkxh; tk¡p esa vuqPNsn 226 d¢ vèkhu gLr{ksi vuqKs; gS ;k ugÈ && tgk¡ l{ke çkfèkdkjh }kjk tk¡p dh xà v©j uSlfxZd fu;e¨a dk vuqlj.k fd;k x;k && lkekU;r% gLr{ksi ugÈ fd;k tk,xk && ;fn fu"d"k¨Za d¢ leFkZu esa d¨Ã lk{; ugÈ ;k vfÒfyf[kr fu"d"kZ foi;ZLr ;k vln~Òkfod Fks && U;k;ky; gLr{ksi dj ldrk gSA

vfÒfuèkkZfjr % bl fook|d ij fof/k dk lkj&la{ksi ;g fudkyk tk ldrk gS fd lafoèkku d¢ vuqPNsn 226 d¢ vèkhu viuh vfèkdkfjrk dk ç;¨x djrs gq, lkafoèkkfud U;k;ky; lkekU;r% ogk¡ gLr{ksi ugÈ djsxk tgk¡ tk¡p l{ke çkfèkdkjh }kjk dh xà Fkh v©j tgk¡ uSlfxZd U;k; ds fu;e¨a dk vuqlj.k fd;k x;k FkkA ;k tgk¡ çkfèkdkjh }kjk fudkys x, fu"d"kZ lk{; ij vkèkkfjr gSaA ;|fi U;k;ky; vuq'kklu çkfèkdkjh ;k foÒkxh; tk¡p ds tk¡p vfèkdkjh }kjk vfÒfyf[kr fu"d"k¨Za ij vihy dh Hkk¡fr fopkj ugha dj ldrk] rFkkfi bldk rkRi;Z ;g ugÈ gS fd fdlh Òh ifjfLFkfr esa U;k;ky; gLr{ksi ugÈ dj ldrkA mPp U;k;ky; d¨ miyC/k U;kf;d leh{kk dh 'kfä esa Äjsyw tk¡p Hkh lgt gh lfEefyr gS v©j ;fn fu"d"k¨Za d¢ leFkZu esa d¨Ã lk{; ugÈ g¨ vFkok vfÒfyf[kr fu"d"kZ foi;ZLr ;k vln~Òkfod gksa rc U;k;ky; mlesa fudkys x, fu"d"kks± esa gLr{ksi dj ldrk gSA ¼2021½ ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,l lh 4] ¼2008½ 3 ,l lh lh 484 rFkk ¼2020½ ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,l lh 886 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 18

¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼oxÊdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-ç-½

&& fu- 14 ¼3½ ¼[k½] 14¼4½] 14¼11½ rFkk 15 && tk¡p dk lekiu@fu'pk;d g¨uk && ls vfÒçsr && vipkjh dh lk{; lekIr && rRi'pkr~ vkj¨i¨a d¢ lacaèk esa nLrkost¨a dh ek¡x djrs gq, vkosnu && bls i'pkr~cks/k ugÈ dgk tk ldrk && vipkjh d¨ nLrkost çnk; fd, fcuk lk{; lekIr djuk && vipkjh d¨ leqfpr volj ls oafpr djus dh d¨fV esa vkrk gS && tk¡p çfrosnu vafre vFkok fu'p;kRed ugÈ gS && vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh lekIr ugha gksrh && vuq'kklukRed çkfèkdkjh d¢ çkfèkdkjh d¢ fofu'p;u ij lekIr g¨rh gS tgk¡ vipkjh d¨ lquokà dk volj miyC/k g¨xk && 'kkfLr vuq'kklu çkfèkdkjh }kjk 'kkfLr vfèkj¨fir dh tk ldrh] tk¡p çkfèkdkjh }kjk ugha A , vkb vkj 1998 ,l lh 2713 rFkk , vkb vkj 1999 ,l lh 3734 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 21 ls 24

¼3½ flfoy lsok ¼oxÊdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-ç-½ && fu- 14 rFkk 15 && iVokjh dh lsok lefIr dk vkns'k && oSèkrk && mld¢ fo#) vkj¨i fd mld¢ çfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij rglhynkj d¢ }kjk ljdkjh Òwfe çkbosV O;fä;¨a d¢ uke vfÒfyf[kr dh xà && foÒkxh; tk¡p çfrosnu esa vkj¨i va'kr% lkfcr ik;k x;k && ,sls tk¡p çfrosnu d¢ vkèkkj ij vuq'kklu çkfèkdkjh }kjk iVokjh d¨ lsokeqä djus dh jk; igys ls gh cuk yh xbZ && rRi'pkr~ mls mÙkj çLrqr djus d¢ fy, lwpuk i= fn;k x;k && mls vkj¨i lalwfpr ugÈ fd;k x;k v©j u çLrkfor naM d¢ lacaèk esa lwfpr fd;k x;k && ;kph d¢ Li"Vhdj.k v©j nLrkost¨a ij fopkj ugÈ fd;k x;k && lsokeqfä dk vkns'k eu¨fu;¨x ds fcuk ;a=or jhfr esa ikfjr fd;k x;k && lk{; ij vkèkkfjr ugÈ && fofèkd çfriknuk esa ,slk vkns'k fLFkj ugÈ j[kk tk ldrk && vuq'kklu çkfèkdkjh rFkk vih çkfèkdkjh d¢ vkns'k vfÒ[kafMr && u, fljs ls tk¡p vc Òh visf{kr g¨ && Lora=rk çnku dh xÃA ¼2013½ 6 ,l lh lh 530 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 2] 3] 6] 30] 33 ,oa 37 ls 39

(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- scope and extent of judicial review -- whether interference in departmental enquiry proceedings is permissible or not under Article 226 -- Where enquiry held by competent authority and rules of natural justice followed -- normally would not be interfered -- if there is no evidence to support findings or findings ricorded were perverse or malafide -- Court can interfere.

Held : the law on this issue can be summed up to the effect that the Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution would not normally interfere where the enquiry was held by competent authority and where the rules of natural justice were followed or where the finding arrived at by the authority are based on evidence. The Court although cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer in a departmental enquiry, it does not mean that under no circumstances can the Court interfere. The power of judicial review available to a High Court takes into stride the domestic enquiry as well and the Court can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there is no evidence to support the findings or the finding recorded were perverse or malafide. (2021) SCC online SC 4, (2008) 3 SCC 484 and (2020) SCC online SC 886 referred to. [Paras 18

(2) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 (M.P.) -- Rr. 14 (3) (b),14(4)), 14(11) and 15 -- closure/conclusiveness of enquiry -- means -- evidence of delinquent closed -- thereafter application for demanding documents inrespect of charges -- it cannot be said after thought -- closing enquiry without supplying documents to delinquent -- amount to denial of fair opportunity to delinquent -- enquiry report is not final or conclusive -- disciplinary proceedings do not stand concluded -- stands concluded with decision of disciplinary quthority where right to be heard would be available to delinquent -- penalty can be imposed by disciplinary authority and not by enquiry officer. A I R 1998 SC 2713 and A I R 1999 SC 3734 referred to. [Para 21 to 24

(3) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- Rr. 14 and 15 -- order of dismissal of Patwari -- legality of -- Charge against him that on his report -- Tahsildar recorded Government lands in name of private persons -- charge partially found proved in departmental enquiry report -- on bais of such enquiry report, disciplinary authority already formed opinion for dismissing to patwari -- thereafter notice given to him for filing reply -- charge not communicated to him, nor he was informed regarding punishment proposed -- explanation and document of petitioner not considered -- order of dismissal passed without -- application of mind in mechanical manner -- not based on evidence -- in legal proposition such order cannot be sustained -- order of disciplinary authority and appellate authority quashed if fresh enquiry is still required -- liberty granted. (2013) 6 SCC 530 referred to. [Paras 2,3, 6, 30, 33 & 37 to 39