ORDER

Paul J. -- 1. This intra Court appeal filed under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 takes exception to the order of learned Single Judge dated 11.2.2020 passed in WP No.12730/2019 whereby the challenge to the disciplinary proceedings, punishment order and appellate order was turned down.

2. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that the appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector was served with a show cause notice dated 28.4.2015 (Annexure P/2). In turn, he filed his reply denied the charges and gave his factual explanation on 4.5.2015 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, indisputably without conducting any departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority/Superintendent of Police (SP), Neemuch imposed a punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect which will have no adverse impact on future increments/pension. Aggrieved, appellant preferred an appeal which was rejected by order dated 1.4.2016. Assailing the disciplinary proceedings, punishment and appellate orders, the appellant filed aforesaid writ petition. Contending inter alia i) the show cause notice was not for imposition of punishment, indeed it was a notice directing the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated. ii) No show cause notice/charge-sheet as contemplated under rule 16 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (CCA Rules) or as per the analogous provision is Regulation 214 of M.P. Police Regulations was ever issued. iii) Without holding any inquiry, the punishment was imposed which runs contrary to principles of natural justice and judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 (O.K. Bhardwaj v.Union of India & Ors.). iv) The Disciplinary Authority although intended to inflict the punishment of stoppage of increment which does not have any future effect on further increments and retiral dues, fact remains that petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2017. His previous increment was due on 1.7.2016 and, therefore, he stood retired a day before his next increment was due. Thus, his retiral dues were calculated on the basis of his last pay drawn which was devoid of the said increment. Thus, in fact and effect, the punishment has an adverse impact on his retiral dues i.e. pension, gratuity and leave encashment.

3. Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge has erred in not carefully considering the nature of show cause notice and treated it to be a justifiable and sufficient notice in consonance with principles of natural justice. Similarly, he gave an opinion that decision making process was correct and there was no procedural lapse whereas the judgment of Supreme Court in O.K. Bhardwaj (supra), clearly shows that in a case of this nature, where reply is filed on facts denying the charges, an inquiry should have been conducted. It is submitted that in a case of this nature where petitioner was subjected to a minor punishment, it is clear that Disciplinary Authority never intended to inflict major punishment and misconduct was never treated to be a major or grave misconduct. Thus, even if this Court comes to the conclusion that decision making process was polluted being violative of principles of natural justice, the matter may not be remitted back for conducting further inquiry. Reliance is placed on rule 9 (1) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (Pension Rules) and Regulation 226 (iv).

4. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on (2016) 9 SCC 20 (Brajendra Singh Yambem v. Union of India & Anr.) and judgment of this Court reported in (2015) 2 MPLJ 526 (Bholeram Soni v. Union of India & Ors.) which is affirmed by the Division Bench and no interference was made by Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 37447/2017.

5. Sounding a contra note, Ms. Vinita Phaye, learned G