Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Dwarkadhish Bansal, JJ.
Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company
Ltd. & Another v. K. K. Mishra & Another
Writ Appeals No. 72 of 2022, 75 of 2022 and 286 of 2022 (Jabalpur): Decided on 2.5.2022
(1) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M. P.) -- R. 14 (3) -- defective charge sheet -- Rules of 1966 adopted by employer -- competent authority for issuance of charge-sheet is Managing Director -- charge-sheet not signed by Managing Director but by Chief General Manager -- nothing in note-sheet to suggest that conscious decision was taken by Managing Director/Disciplinary Authority by approving draft of charge-sheet -- no such draft charge-sheet was kept for approval before Managing Director -- approval for initiating disciplinary proceeding and approval to charge memorandum are two divisible acts -- each one requires independent application of mind on part of disciplinary authority -- default in process of application of mind independently at time of issue of charge memorandum by disciplinary authority -- would not get cured by fact that such approval was there at initial stage -- charge-sheet and subsequent disciplinary proceedings set aside -- liberty to competent disciplinary authority to proceed against delinquent employees in accordance with law. (2014) 1 SCC 351 and Civil Appeals No. 8427 of 2018 and 8428 of 2018 decided on 21.8.2018 (SC) followed. 2021 (4) JLJ 442 relied on.
[Paras 14, 20, 24 & 30
(2) Departmental Enquiry -- preliminary enquiry/fact-finding inquiry -- is conducted to prima-facie examine whether there exists any material which requires disciplinary authority to proceed against delinquent employee -- preliminary enquiry officer under no obligation to take decision whether regular enquiry is to be conducted or not -- preliminary enquiry committee/authority, at best, can recommend conducting enquiry and submit its preliminary enquiry report before competent authority. [Para 18
(3) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M. P.) -- R. 14 (4) -- defective charge sheet -- validity -- no eyebrows raised on validity of charge-sheet during enquiry -- that will not validate departmental enquiry or defective charge-sheet -- if departmental enquiry is bad in law since inception because of defective charge-sheet, entire edifice founded upon it needs to be axed. [Para 25
(4) Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 -- S. 13 -- M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 -- R. 14 -- executive instructions dated 23.9.1964 and 23.2.1972 -- issued in pursuance and furtherance of S. 13 of Electricity (Supply) Act -- S. 13 is about authentication of orders and decisions of Board -- no nexus with issuance of charge-sheet under CCA Rules. [Para 26
(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 226/227 -- Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M. P.) -- R. 14 -- equity -- defective charge sheet -- similarly situated delinquent employees are entitled to get similar treatment -- similar issue decided in favour of another employee -- Single Judge erred in relegating petitioner to appellate authority -- order deserves interference. [Paras 21, 27 & 29
(6) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M. P.) -- S. 2 (1) -- scope of writ appeal -- plausible view taken -- does not warrant interference. [Para 28
¼1½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-14¼3½ && =qfViw.kZ vkjksii= && fu;kstd }kjk lu~ 1966 ds fu;e vaxhÑr && vkjksii= tkjh djus ds fy, l{ke izkf/kdkjh izca/k funs'kd gS && vkjksii= izcaèk funs'kd }kjk ugha] vfirq eq[; egkizca/kd }kjk gLrk{kfjr && fVIi.kif=dk esa ;g lq>kus ds fy, dqN ugha fd izca/k funs'kd@vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk vkjksii= dk izk:i vuqeksfnr dj lHkku fofu'p; fd;k x;k Fkk && ,slk dksbZ izk:i vkjksii= izca/k funs'kd ds le{k vuqeksnu ds fy, ugha j[kk x;k && vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh vkjaHk djus ds fy, vuqeksnu rFkk vkjksi Kkiu dk vuqeksnu nks fHkUu foHkkT; ÑR; gSa && izR;sd ds fy, vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk Lora= euksfu;ksx visf{kr && vkjksi Kkiu tkjh fd, tkus ds le; vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk Lora= euksfu;ksx dh izfØ;k esa O;frØe && bl rF; ls ugha lq/kjsxk fd ,slk vuqeksnu vkjafHkd izØe ij Fkk && vkjksi i= rFkk i'pkr~orhZ vuq'kklfud dk;Zokfg;ksa vikLr && l{ke vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh dks vipkjh deZpkfj;ksa ds fo#) fof/k ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus dh Lora=rkA ¼2014½1 ,l lh lh 351 rFkk flfoy vihysa Ø- 8427 lu~ 2018 rFkk 8428 lu~ 2018 fu.khZr fnukad 21-8-2018 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA 2021 ¼4½ ts ,y ts 442 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 14] 20] 24 ,oa 30
¼2½ foHkkxh; tk¡p && izkjafHkd tk¡p@rF;kUos"kh tk¡p && izFken`"V~;k ;g ijh{kk djus ds fy, dh tkrh gS fd D;k ,slh lkexzh gS ftlls vuq'kklfud izkfèkdkjh dk vipkjh deZpkjh ds fo#) dk;Zokgh djuk vko';d gks && izkjafHkd tk¡p vf/kdkjh ;g fofu'p; djus ds fy, ck/; ugha fd fu;fer tk¡p dh tkuk gS ;k ugha && izkajfHkd tk¡p lfefr@izkf/kdkjh] vf/kd&ls&vf/kd] tk¡p fd, tkus dh flQkfj'k dj ldrk gS rFkk l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds le{k viuk izkjafHkd tk¡p izfrosnu izLrqr dj ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 18
¼3½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-14¼4½ && =qfViw.kZ vkjksii= && fof/kekU;rk && vkjksii= dh fof/kekU;rk ij tk¡p ds nkSjku vkifÙk ugha dh xbZ && blls foHkkxh; tk¡p ;k =qfViw.kZ vkjksii= fof/kekU; ugha gks tkrs && ;fn =qfViw.kZ vkjksii= ds dkj.k foHkkxh; tk¡p vkjaHk ls gh fof/k dh n`f"V ls nks"kiw.kZ gS rks ml ij vk/kkfjr laiw.kZ lajpuk dh
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226@227 && flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ && 14 && lkE;k && =qfViw.kZ vkjksii=
&& lekur% fLFkr vipkjh deZpkjh leku O;ogkj ds gdnkj gSa && ;gh fook|d ,d vU; deZpkjh ds i{k esa fofuf'pr && ;kph dks vihy izkf/kdkjh ds ikl izsf"kr dj ,dy U;k;k/kh'k us xyrh dh && vkns'k gLr{ksi ;ksX;A ¼iSjk 21] 27 ,oa 29
¼6½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼e-iz-½
&& /kkjk 2¼1½ && fjV vihy dh O;kfIr && laHkkO; n`f"Vdks.k viuk;k x;k && gLr{ksi okaNuh; ughaA ¼iSjk 28
ORDER (Oral)
Paul, J. -- 1. On the joint request, matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order passed. These intra-Court appeals take exception to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Since, question of law involved in all these matters is similar, on the joint request of the parties, the matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order.
W.A. No. 75/2022
2. In this writ appeal, the employer assailed the order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 24414/2021 decided on 6.1.2022. The singular legal issue raised for determination was whether the charge-sheet dated 21.1.2020 Annexure P/13 and supplementary charge-sheet dated 15.5.2020 Annexure P/19 were issued by the competent disciplinary authority namely Managing Director.
3. Shri Prashant Singh, learned senior counsel at the outset fairly submitted that it is not in dispute that Managing Director is the disciplinary authority as per the relevant schedule of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short ‘CCA Rules’) which were adopted by the appellant/employer.
4. Learned senior counsel submits that no doubt in other cases, the interference was made by learned Single Judge on the charge-sheet because it was not approved by the Managing Director but in the instant case, the charge-sheet was duly approved by the said competent disciplinary authority. It is submitted that in W.P. No. 14649/2021 (Tarun Kumar Mishra v. State of M.P.) (Annexure A-3) decided on 21.10.2021, [reported in 2021 (4) JLJ 442] the charge-sheet and disciplinary enquiry founded upon it was interfered with because there was no approval of the charge-sheet by the Managing Director and it was signed by the Chief General Manager. Indisputably, writ appeal filed against the order in Tarun Kumar Mishra (supra), was withdrawn and the fact remains that instant note-sheet (Page19) shows that the draft charge-sheet was in-fact approved.
5. Learned senior counsel strenuously contended that the para- 3, 4 and 5 of note-sheet is to be read conjointly. Para-3 of note-sheet shows that the fact finding enquiry report is produced and it is opined that a charge-sheet can be issued and a departmental enquiry can be instituted. Para-4 of note-sheet shows that the case was placed before the Competent Authority for perusal and for passing necessary orders. A conjoint reading of para- 3, 4 and 5 shows that after perusal of the entire record, which contains the draft charge-sheet as well, the competent authority has given the approval. Thus, the present case is different than other cases which were allowed and in which there existed no approval of the disciplinary authority to the charge-sheet.
6. Learned senior counsel for the employer further submits that after receiving the charge-sheet and during the entire enquiry proceedings, the respondent-employee did not raise any objection about validity of chargesheet. He after suffering the punishment and without preferring an appeal for the first time, raised the question of competence of authority in issuing the impugned charge-sheet.
7. Shri Prashant Singh, learned senior counsel further submits that the order of erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board dated 23rd September 1964 and 23rd February 1973 (Annexure R/1-A and R/2) shows that there exist a delegation of power to the Additional Secretary (re-designated as Chief General Manager) to execute the instruments as mentioned in the said order. The notification dated 18.8.2012 (Annexure R/4) is relied upon to contend that the previous decisions of erstwhile MPEB will remain in force. The document dated 20.9.2013 (Annexure R/5) is referred to show that erstwhile Additional Secretary was renamed as Chief General Manager (HR & Admn.). This shows there exists a delegation of power to Chief General Manager pursuant to which he has rightly issued and signed
Charge memorandum issued without prior disciplinary authority approval is non est; post-facto ratification invalid where statute mandates prior approval before issuance.
The charge-sheet issued by an authority not competent to impose the penalties specified in the rules, without the approval of the competent authority, is void ab initio.
Charge sheet upheld where Disciplinary Authority approved via file notings with application of mind; natural justice requires supplying relied-upon documents; proceedings abeyed pending review post-d....
A disciplinary authority may initiate proceedings for penalties if designated in the service rules, but the authority to impose major penalties lies with a separate designated officer.
Disciplinary charge-sheet must be issued by authorized officer as per regulations; prior approval insufficient if not signed by Director on behalf of competent authority for Group ‘A’ employees, rend....
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
