A proper departmental enquiry is mandatory before holding an employee guilty of misconduct under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services Rules.

Indeed, the pleadings are complete and with the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. By the instant petition, the petitioner is raising grievance in respect of the order dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the Chief Executive Officer directed for registration of FIR as the petitioner was found responsible for committing illegality while executing a Scheme viz. Vivah Sahayta Nidhi in which out of 2222 sanctioned cases, it was found that in 85 cases ineligible persons were granted the benefit and as such it is decided to lodge the FIR against the petitioner.

3. Although on earlier occasion a petition was preferred before this Court challenging the action of the respondents i.e. W.P.No.16592/2022, which was disposed of giving liberty to the authorities i.e. Collector and Commissioner to conduct proper enquiry to ascertain the involvement of the officers in the alleged irregularity and also ascertain the amount which is to be recovered from them after initiating enquiry in which they should also be given opportunity of hearing.

4. In response to the said order, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner i.e. Annexure-P/10 dated 26.07.2022 labelling four charges against the petitioner and reply to the said charge-sheet was also called. The petitioner submitted a reply but after submitting the reply and considering the same, the department proceeded further and without conducting regular departmental enquiry on the basis of reply submitted by the petitioner, finding it unsatisfactory, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has committed financial irregularity and granted benefit to 85 ineligible persons and as such recovery was proposed to be made from the petitioner and two other erring officers.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner sanguinely submits that the document dated 26.12.2023 is nothing but a report of enquiry submitted to the Collector that too on the basis of reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet issued to him. He also submits that from the charge-sheet it is clear that it has been issued under Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short “Rules, 1966”) and in such circumstance, it was expected from the authority to conduct regular departmental enquiry so as to prove the misconduct against the petitioner and actual pecuniary loss if any caused to the government. But neither any enquiry was conducted nor any opportunity was granted to the petitioner and only on the basis of his reply, the authority has taken decision and enquiry officer submitted report to the Collector dated 26.12.2023.

6. In contrast, Shri Raizada, learned counsel for the State submits that regular departmental enquiry has been conducted as is evident from paragraph 7 of the reply filed on behalf of the State and therefore nothing wrong has been done. The enquiry was ordered by this Court, which has been done and on the basis of report, action is being taken against the petitioner.

7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.

8. On mature consideration, I find that the stand taken by the respondents is contrary to the material available on record inasmuch as no departmental enquiry has been conducted and only on the basis of reply to the charge-sheet, report was prepared and communicated to the Collector. In my opinion, once the charge-sheet has been issued under Rule 14 of Rules, 1966 it was obligatory for the respondents to complete the enquiry to prove the misconduct or the charges levelled in the charge-sheet. Although the authority is free to drop the charges on the basis of reply submitted by the delinquent, but punishment cannot be inflicted and employee cannot be held guilty unless regular departmental enquiry is conducted in which delinquent is granted opportunity to defend himself. However, in the case at hand, it is not done as is reflected from communication dated 26.