Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 1638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rajendra Menon, Alok Verma, JJ.
Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya – Appellant
Vs.
Mannu Lal Rajak - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 108 of 2014
Decided On : 26-08-2014
For the Appellant :Shobha Menon, Learned Senior Counsel and Rahul Choubey, Advocate
For the Respondent:N.K. Salunke, Learned Counsel, Advocate
Violation of statutory rules in conducting a departmental enquiry leads to the presumption of prejudice to the employee, and demonstration of prejudice is not necessary.
Headnote:
Departmental Enquiry - Employee Termination - Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules - Rule 30, Rule 14(11) - The court discussed the violation of statutory rules in conducting the departmental enquiry and the requirement of serving notices by registered post. The court highlighted the principle that when statutory rules are violated, prejudice to the employee is deemed to have been occasioned and demonstration of prejudice is not necessary. The court also emphasized that an employee's explanation for absence is not an unconditional admission of guilt.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent employee, a Chowkidar at the University, was suspended and subsequently removed from service after a departmental enquiry. The Writ Court set aside the termination order due to non-compliance with statutory rules and remanded the matter for a fresh enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental enquiry was vitiated for non-compliance with statutory rules and procedures, leading to the setting aside of the termination order and remand for a fresh enquiry.
Issues: The issues revolved around the propriety of remanding the matter for a fresh enquiry despite the respondent employee's alleged admission of guilt and the absence of demonstrated prejudice due to the violation of statutory rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when statutory rules are violated, prejudice to the employee is deemed to have been occasioned, and demonstration of prejudice is not necessary. The court also emphasized that an employee's explanation for absence is not an unconditional admission of guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Writ Court's decision to set aside the termination order and remand the matter for a fresh enquiry.
Rajendra Menon, J.
This appeal by the Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar has been filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 calling in question tenability of an order dated 18.9.2013 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P. No.4815/2001.
2. Facts in brief goes to show that respondent Shri Mannu Lal Rajak was working as Chowkidar in the establishment of the University. He was appointed on compassionate ground after his father died in harness. On account of repeated absence unauthorizedly without leave and because of his negligence in performance of duties as certain theft took place in the University campus, he was placed under suspension on 16.4.1999 and thereafter, a charge sheet dated 22.5.1999 Annexure P/4 was issued to him. In the charge sheet five imputation of allegations were leveled against him mainly pertaining to his unauthorized absence and the result of which was a theft in the University. A departmental enquiry was conducted and based on the finding recorded in the departmental enquiry, he was removed from service. Appeal preferred having also been rejected, the respondent employee filed the writ petition. In the Writ Petition, the learned Writ Court found that an ex-parte enquiry without proper notice to him has been conducted, statutory rules in the matter of issuing notice has not been complied with and therefore, the termination order has been set aside, matter was remanded back for conduct of enquiry from the stage of submission of reply and the liberty is granted to the department to take action for regularizing the intervening period after completion of enquiry. The entire action has been taken in accordance to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., (1993) 4 SCC 727. Challenging this order of the Writ Court, this writ appeal has been filed.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant made a three fold submission. The first contention of the learned Senior Counsel was that in the face of the admission to the charges by the respondent employee and the manner in which the proceeding has been held, it was not appropriate on the part of the Writ Court to remand the matter for fresh enquiry as the material available on record does show that employee has admitted the guilt.
4. The second contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants was that merely because enquiry was conducted ex-parte or the report of Enquiry Officer was not given to the delinquent employee, prejudice in the matter being not demonstrated, remand was not called for and it is said that in the absence of demonstration of prejudice, remand of the matter was not a proper course to be adopted by the learned Writ Court.
5. Finally, it was argued that the employee has not discharged his burden of explaining the circumstances existing against him and in the matter of termination of Chowkidar as a reasonable decision has been taken by the department, interference into the matter is not called for.
6. Taking us through the documents and material available on record, the conduct of employee during the period of service, learned Senior Counsel emphasized that in the facts and circumstances of the case, interference into the matter was not called for. In support of her aforesaid contention, she relied on the following judgments New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vipin Behari Lal Srivastava, (2008) 3 SCC 446, The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Vijay Krishna Neema and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 567 , Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., (1993) 4 SCC 727, Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Sardar Singh, (2004) 7 SCC 574 and Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Bishamber Das Dogra, (2009) 13 SCC 102.
7. Refuting the aforesaid contention, Shri N. K. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for the respondent employee argued that when the departmental enquiry was vitiated fo
