The satisfaction of the disciplinary authority to decide on a regular departmental enquiry is subjective and not open for judicial review unless based on extraneous consideration or suffering from perversity of approach.

ORDER : – Petitioner while serving on the post of AG-3 has been visited with the penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 13,248/- by the impugned order dated 10-5-2012 (Annexure P/1). The appeal arising therefrom has been dismissed vide order dated 20-5-2013 and review has also been dismissed vide order dated 12-5-2017. The orders dated 20-5-2013 and 12-5-2017 are filed as Annexure P/2.

2. Shri D. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner while taking exception to the impugned orders inter alia has made following submissions :

(i) Though the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 9-11-2011 purportedly under Rule 16 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the “1966 Rules”), however regular enquiry ought to have been held as petitioner has denied the charges. That was not done. Therefore, the impugned penalty is bad in law. (ii) The Appellate Authority has not considered the grounds raised in the appeal, though under Rule 23 of 1966 Rules the Appellate Authority ought to have considered each and every ground raised. Failure in that behalf has polluted the appellate order as well. (iii) The Appellate Authority did not apply its mind to consider review petition in right perspective.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in O. K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 180 and order of this Court passed in Writ Appeal No. 369/2017, Dr. Arun Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others decided on 28-11-2017.

3. Per Contra, Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the show cause notice has been issued under Rule 16 of 1966 Rules and the petitioner was afforded opportunity to reply to the same as contemplated under Rule 16. The allegations made against the petitioner in the show cause notice were that of dereliction of duty, indiscipline and avoiding to obey the orders of the superior authority. Upon receipt of reply, the disciplinary authority was satisfied that there was no requirement of regular enquiry under sub-rules (i) to (xxiii) of Rule 14 of 1966 Rules. Upon consideration of the reply the impugned penalty has been imposed. Referring to the memo of appeal (Annexure P/6) learned counsel for the respondents submits that no grounds have been raised in the appeal requiring decision on merits; instead, a sympathetic consideration was requested. Therefore, no illegality can be attached to the impugned appellate order. Likewise, the order rejecting the review application is not open for challenge.

Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 383/2022, Smt. Pratibha Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others decided on 15-7-2022, wherein the judgment in O. K. Bharadwaj (supra) has been taken into consideration. He relies upon the relevant paras 3.4(a) and 3.4(b) of the said judgment quoted below :

“3.4 (a) The decision of O. K. Bharadwaj vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 is cited very often by the members of the Bar as the last sword in support of the contention that even if charge-sheet is for minor punishment, if the delinquent employee denies the charges which are factual in nature, then it is incumbent upon disciplinary authority to conduct full-fledged enquiry under Rule 14 of the 1966 Rules failing which the order of punishment is vitiated in law. 3.4 (b) The aforesaid assumption in the considered opinion of this Court is fallacious. The decision of O. K. Bharadwaj (S) was a case arising out of a judgment of Delhi High Court where the High Court while dismissing the petition of the employee held that since withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect was a minor penalty under the relevant rules the need for full-fledged enquiry gets obviated. The Apex Court in O. K. Bharadwaj (S) while upturning the decision of