1.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in

the present case regarding imposition of minor punishment without

holding an inquiry under Rule 16 of Madhya Pradesh Civil

Services (Classification Control Appeal Rules, 1966) (in short

referred as “Rules 1966”) has been decided by a Co-ordinate Bench

at Gwalior by order dated 04.09.2019 in W.P. No.18375 of 2019

(Rajendra Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P.) after referring to the

judgments of the Supreme Court and the orders of Co-ordinate

Bench.

With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.

3.

The petitioner is working as Head Constable in the Police

Department. At the relevant time he was posted in District

Khargone. One case Crime No.779 of 2020 was registered under

Section 4-A of the Gambling Act at Police Station Khargone. It was

alleged that the petitioner and five other Police Officers had

unlawfully provided shelter to the gambling activity. Consequent to

the order dated 03.12.2020, the petitioner and other police officers

were placed under suspension by order dated 15.01.2021. The order

of suspension was revoked. A show-cause notice dated 02.02.2021

was issued to the petitioner for imposition of punishment as to why

the disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against the petitioner

and other five Police Officers by Superintendent of Police,

Khargone. The petitioner has filed the reply to the said show-cause

notice.

3

It is submitted that without holding any inquiry, the

Superintendent of Police, Khargone passed an order of punishment

of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect for the

period of one year. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner

preferred an appeal before respondent No.3 - Deputy Inspector

General of Police, Khargone. The said appeal was also dismissed

by order dated 04.06.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an

appeal before respondent No.2 - Inspector General of Police, PHQ,

Bhopal who partly allowed the appeal and the original order of

punishment was modified to the extent that period of suspension

shall be treated as working period and the order of punishment of

stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect was

confirmed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the present

petition is filed.

5.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the stoppage of

increment with non-cumulative effect is a minor punishment under

Rule 10 of Rules, 1966 and therefore, before passing an order of

minor punishment, an inquiry as envisaged under Rule 16 of Rules,

1966 has to be held. Since, no enquiry is held under Rule 16 of

Rules, 1966, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

6.

Counsel for the State on the basis of impugned order of

punishment and appellate order could not establish that an inquiry

under Rule 16 of Rules, 1966 was conducted by the Disciplinary

Authority before passing an order of punishment. It is submitted

that matter be remanded to the Appellate Authority to pass fresh

order.

4

7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal

of impugned order and the appellate orders, it is manifest that no

inquiry under Rule 16 of Rules, 1966 has been held before

imposition of minor punishment.

8.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj

vs. Union of India & others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 has

held as under :-

“While we agree with the first proposition of

the High Court having regard to the rule position

which expressly says that "withholding increments

of pay with or without cumulative effect" is a minor

penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the

second proposition. Even in the case of a minor

penalty an opportunity has to be given to the

delinquent employee to have his say or to file his

explanation with respect to the charges against him.

Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are

denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry

should also be called for. This is the minimum

requirement of the principle of natural jus