Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Agarwal, J.
Madan Mohan Dwivedi v. The State of M.P. & Others
Writ Petition No. 7187 of 2012 (Jabalpur); Decided on 28.4.2022
(1) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M. P.) -- R. 16 -- “reasonable opportunity”-- does not mean that petitioner could have slept over notice for period of more than six/nine months whereas he was obliged to submit his reply within 15 days -- interpretation of reasonable time is that it should be within time prescribed in notice -- petitioner was categorically asked to submit reply within 15 days of receipt of show cause notice -- did not submit reply within prescribed time -- cannot be said that he had right to get reply considered. (2005) 7 SCC 667 and (1995) 6 SCC 509 followed. (1993) AC 22 relied on. [Paras 13 to 15
(2) Natural Justice -- opportunity of hearing -- petitioner was categorically asked to submit reply within 15 days of receipt of show cause notice – did not submit reply within prescribed time – cannot be said that rules of natural justice have been by-passed – petitioner filing reply after considerably long delay of receiving show cause notice is not entitled to get his reply considered. [Paras 14 & 15
(3) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M. P.) -- Rr. 10 (4) and 16 (1) (e) -- imposing of minor penalty -- consultation with Public Service Commission -- freedom given by use of language “where such consultation is necessary” -- for imposing minor penalty, consultation with Public Service Commission not mandatory. AIR 1957 SC 912 and AIR 1970 SC 158 followed. [Paras 16 & 17
(4) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M. P.) -- Rr. 10 (4) and 16 -- recommendations of enquiry officer/disciplinary authority -- not mandatory for appellate authority to accept -- opinion of disciplinary authority not binding on appellate authority. 1998 (4) SLR 711 (P&HFB) relied on. [Paras 18 & 19
(5) Constitution of India – Art. 226/227 -- scope of judicial review -- departmental enquiry -- impugned order not disproportionate, arbitrary or violative of principles of natural justice -- interference not called for. (2003) 4 SCC 364 and (1997) 3 SCC 72 followed. [Paras 21 & 22
¼1½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-16 ß;qfDr;qDr voljÞ && ;g rkRi;Z ugha fd ;kph Ng@ukS ekl ls vfèkd dh vof/k rd lwpuk ds laca/k eas fuf"Ø; jg ldrk Fkk tcfd og 15 fnol ds Hkhrj viuk mÙkj izLrqr djus ds fy, ck/; Fkk &&;qfDr;qDr le; dk fuoZpu ;g gS fd og lwpuk esa fofgr le; ds Hkhrj gks && ;kph ls dkj.k crkvks lwpuk dh izkfIr ds 15 fnol ds Hkhrj mÙkj izLrqr djus ds fy, lqLi"Vr% dgk x;k Fkk && fofgr le; ds Hkhrj mÙkj izLrqr ugha fd;k && ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd mls mÙkj ij fopkj djokus dk vf/kdkj FkkA ¼2005½7 ,l lh lh 667 rFkk ¼1995½ 6 ,l lh lh 509 vuqlfjrA ¼1993½ , lh 22 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 13 ,oa 15
¼2½ uSlfxZd U;k; && lquokbZ dk volj && ;kph ls dkj.k crkvks lwpuk dh izkfIr ds 15 fnol ds Hkhrj mÙkj izLrqr djus ds fy, lqLi"Vr% dgk x;k Fkk && fofgr le; ds Hkhrj mÙkj izLrqr ugha fd;k && ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd uSlfxZd U;k; ds fu;eksa dh mis{kk dh xbZ && dkj.k crkvks lwpuk izkIr djus ds i'pkr~ vR;f/kd foyac ls mÙkj izLrqr djus okyk ;kph vius mÙkj ij fopkj djokus dk gdnkj ughaA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15
¼3½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-10 ¼pkj½ rFkk 16¼1½ ¼M-½ && xkS.k 'kkfLr dk vf/kjksi.k && yksd lsok vk;ksx ls ijke'kZ && Hkk"kk ßtgk¡ ,slk ijke'kZ vko';d gksÞ ds mi;ksx ls Lora=rk nh xbZ && xkS.k 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir djus ds fy, yksd lsok vk;ksx ls ijke'kZ vkKkid ughaA , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 912 rFkk , vkb vkj 1970 ,l lh 158 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 17
¼4½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-10 ¼pkj½ rFkk 16 && tk¡p vf/kdkjh@vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh dh flQkfj'ksa && vihy izkf/kdkjh dks Lohdkj djuk vkKkid ugha && vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh dh jk; vihy izkf/kdkjh ij vkc)dj ughaA 1998 ¼4½ ,l ,y vkj 711 ¼iatkc rFkk gfj-&iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 18 ,oa 19
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226@227 && U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr && foHkkxh; tk¡p && vkf{kIr vkns'k vuuqikfrd] euekuk vFkok uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa ds vfrØe.k esa ugha && gLr{ksi okaNuh; ughaA ¼2003½4] ,l lh lh 364 rFkk ¼1997½3 ,l lh lh 72 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 21 ,oa 22
ORDER
1. Petitioner has raised three issues in this writ petition namely, petitioner was given a show cause notice dated 22.4.2009, Annexure P-1, which was admittedly received by him on 6.6.2009 but he filed reply on 15.1.2010.
2. It is submitted that though reply was submitted on 15.1.2010 it was not considered and impugned order dated 3.3.2010 was passed.
3. Issue which is raised is that whether authorities are required to consider a reply even filed belatedly after more than seven months of receiving the show cause notice or not ?
4. Second issue which has been raised is that as per the provisions contained in rule 16(1)(e) whether consultation with the Public Service Commission while imposing minor penalty of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was mandatory or not ?
5. Third issue which is ancillary is that the disciplinary authority himself had recommended to the appellate authority to convert punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect to that of censure. Thus whether the recommendation of the disciplinary authority to the appellate authority is binding or not ?
6. Another subsidiary issue is whether proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner or not ?
7. It is evident from the impugned order, Annexure P3 that petitioner was not furnishing acknowledgment of the receipt of the show cause notice dated 22.4.2009 till 23.9.2009 which was received from him on 4.1.2010 as was forwarded by the Conservator of Forest. In Annexure-P/3 it is mentioned as under :
**mDr i= Jh f}osnh] lgk;d ou laj{kd }kjk fnukad 23-9-09 dks eq[; ou laj{kd jhok ds ek/;e ls izkIr fd;k x;k] bl dk;kZy; }kjk tkjh i= esa Li"V mYys[k Fkk fd os cpko mRrj i= ikorh ls 15 fnol dh vof/k esa fuf'pr #i ls izLrqr djsa] fdUrq mudk cpko mÙkj fnukad rd bl dk;kZy; esa izkIr ugha gqvk vkSj u gh cpko mRrj izLrqr djus ds iz;kstu ls lqlaxr vfHkys[k voyksdu djus ds laca/k esa dksbZ vkosnu izkIr gqvkA
4- izdj.k esa eq[; ou laj{kd vuqla/kku foLrkj o`Rr jhok }kjk muds i= dzekad@vuq-fo-@fo-tka-@21 fnukad 4-1-2010 ls Jh f}osnh }kjk izkIr fd, x, mDr i= dh ikorh izsf"kr dh x;h gSA eq[; ou laj{kd vuqla/kku foLrkj o`Rr jhok ds i= ds lkFk izkIr lgi=ksa ds voyksdu ls Li"V gksrk gS fd Jh f}osnh dks i= dh ikorh Hkstus gsrq oueaMy vf/kdkjh flaxjkSyh }kjk muds i= fnukad 6-6-2009 ls ys[k fd;k x;k Fkk fdUrq ikorh u Hkstus ij eq[; ou laj{kd jhok }kjk iqu% Lej.k djk;s tkus ij eq[; ou laj{kd jhok ds i= ij gh Jh f}osnh }kjk ikorh nh x;h gSA izdj.k esa Jh f}osnh }kjk ikorh nh x;h gSA izdj.k esa Jh f}osnh dk cpko mÙkj vizkIr gksuk rFkk muls dksbZ i=kpkj izkIr u gksus ls ;g ekudj fd Jh f}osnh dks vius cpko esa dqN ugha dguk gS rFkk mudks yxk;k x;k vkjksi ekU; gS] muds Åij yxk, x, vk{ksi ds laaca/k esa mudk mÙkjnkf;Ro fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gSA vr% izdj.k esa lexz#i ls fopkjksijkUr esa vkns'k nsrk gw¡ fd %&
@@vkns'k@@
Hkksiky] fnukad 3-3-2010
Øekad @@100@@ Jh ,e- ,e- f}osnh] lgk;d ou laj{kd] mi oueaMy vf/kdkjh dFkZqvk dks e/; izns'k flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 6 10 ¼4½ ds varxZr vkxkeh nks osruo`f);k¡ vlap;h izHkko ls jksds tkus ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA^^
8. Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised several grounds to assail impugned orders; namely; there is no provision for imposition of punishment on the ground of non-submission of daily diary. It is submitted that impugned order is contrary to the provisions of rule 10 and Rule 16 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the impugned order has been passed with mala fide intention without going through the reply.
9. It is also submitted that there is no consultation/approval of the M.P. Public Service Commission before issuance of the impugned orders, therefore, on this ground alone the petition deserves to be allowed. Lastly it is submitted that petitioner had an unblemished career, therefore, the order of punishment is perverse.
10. Shri Subodh Kathar, learned Govt. Advocate, in his turn, sub
SupremeToday
The failure to supply the enquiry report and show cause notice caused prejudice to the writ petitioner. The punishment imposed must be within the authority of law as prescribed in the list of punishm....
The court ruled that failure to provide an opportunity to contest enhanced punishment recommended by the PSC violated natural justice principles, necessitating the quashing of the punishment order.
Disciplinary action must adhere to principles of natural justice; vague charges necessitate a proper inquiry, and appellate decisions require thorough reasoning.
Authorities must provide reasoned decisions, avoid pre-judging issues, and adhere to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
