ORDER

In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 09.01.2023 whereby he has been punished with stoppage of one annual increment with non cumulative effect.

2 . Counsel for petitioner submits that the aforesaid order of minor punishment has been passed without following the provisions of Rule 16 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

3. Counsel for State opposed the prayer on the ground that the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal against the order of minor punishment. Since the order impugned has been passed in patent violation of provisions of Rule 16 of Rules of 1966, therefore, objection of the respondents regarding availability of alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal is not accepted. If the impugned order is passed arbitrarily and in violation of statutory rules, this Court may exercise discretionary power under extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trademark & Ors (1998) 8 SCC 1. 4. 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 justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.”

5 . The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. & others by order dated 27.02.2018 passed in W.P .No.2200/2017 has held has under :

''Taking the second issue first as to whether it was within the competence of the authority concerned to have inflicted the minor penalty of stoppage of one increment with noncumulative effect for a period one year without holding a departmental enquiry as contemplated under Rule 14 of the Rules 1966, the same is settled at rest by the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and others [(2001) 9 SCC 180] wherein it is held:

"3. 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 justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.''

6. The same view has been taken by Co-ordinate Bench at Gwalior in the matter of Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of MP passed in WP No.18375/2019 dated 04.09.2019 wherein it has been held that order of minor punishment cannot be passed without compliance of the provisions of Rule 16 of Rules, 1966.

7 . In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, the impugned order of punishment of stoppage of one increment with non cumulative effect dated 09.01.2023 is quashed. Liberty is granted to the competent authority to pass a fresh