1. Petitioner was Asstt. Director, Fisheries at the relevant time at Ratlam. He was asked to attend training on Govt. expenses at Central Fisheries Education Institution, Mumbai for the training session 1997-99. Pursuant thereto, petitioner was relieved on 16.7.1997 from the office of the Asstt. Director Fisheries Ratlam for joining at Mumbai for the purposes of training. He reported at the training institution Mumbai on 17.7.1997. At the training institution, petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 3,065/- in addition to Rs. 1,450/- as hostel fees. These expenses were liable to be deposited by the Govt. which were not duly deposited. Since the petitioner was not possessed of sufficient money, he could not deposit the amount. Consequently, he was not allowed to attend the training. He came back to Ratlam and reported the matter to respondent No.2 immediately on 18.7.1997. Petitioner was, thereafter, suspended and was served with a show-cause notice marked as Annexure A-10. He submitted his reply as revealed in Annexure A-11, refuting the allegations and further explained the reasons for not attending the training. After receipt of the reply of the petitioner, the Director of Fisheries appointed an Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer for the purposes of enquiry against the petitioner in the matter of Annexures A-10 and A.11. However, no enquiry was conducted pursuant to Annexures A-10 to A-12 and instead, an order contained in Annexure-N2 dated 22.7.1998 was issued cancelling thereby Annexure A-12 for the reason that there would be no propriety in holding departmental enquiry against the petitioner because neglect and dereliction in duties are made out from the reply. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 22.7.1998 was issued imposing thereby the penalty of censure. Further, the travelling expenses and allowance for journey from Ratlam to Mumbai and back have also been denied. By way of modification vide Annexure A-3 dated 16.2.2000, the period of suspension has been treated as on duty for all the purposes. Aggrievd by Annexure A-2, petitioner submitted a representation before the State Govt. which, too, has been rejected on 21.3.2000 vide Annexure A-1. Aggrieved by Annexures A-1 and A-2, petitioner submitted an original application before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior.

2. In the return, it has been contended that the petitioner was given advance of travelling allowance. He was validly relieved to report at the training centre at Mumbai on 16.7.1997. Petitioner has produced his joining at the training centre on 17.7.1997. He returned back to Ratlam on 18.7.1997 on the ground that the requisite amount was not sent to the training centre. It is further stated in the return that the petitioner assumed charge of office of Asstt. Director Fisheries at Ratlam in a forcible manner on 21.7.1997. Thus, case of the respondents is that enquiry in pursuance of Annexure A-10 to A-12 was withdrawn and a minor penalty of censure was imposed which did not require further notice of show cause and enquiry at all.

3. Shri Gaurav Samadhiya, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri V.S. Chaturvedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the State have made their respective submissions which have been considered in the light of the material on record.

4. Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 empowers the Competent Authority to impose penalty. Rule 10 provides for imposing minor as well as major penalties. Procedure for imposing penalty specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 is provided in Rule 14 which makes it obligatory for holding of enquiry. It is thus clear that before imposing minor penalty specified in clauses (v) to (ix) no enquiry in the prescribed manner is to be held necessarily. As a corollary, it may well be said that enquiry in the same manner is not required while imposing minor penalty. However, that will not empower the authority to impose minor penalty without follow