With consent heard finally.

2

2.

The present petition is preferred under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution taking exception to the order dated 21.04.2011

(Annexure P-1) passed by General Manager (O&M) Gwalior Circle

whereby petitioner who was working as Junior Engineer was

inflicted with punishment of stoppage of one annual increment

without cumulative effect.

3.

Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner at the

relevant point of time was posted at rural area and divisional office

Datia. Petitioner made less recovery of electricity dues from the

consumers in comparison to previous year i.e. 2009-2010 and did

not achieve the target of recovery in 2010-2011 resulting into loss

to the company. Therefore, a show cause notice was served on

10.06.2010 which was received by the petitioner on 23.06.2010.

Same was replied on 02.07.2010 wherein petitioner categorically

mentioned the fact that he has not right to write the Confidential

Report (C.R.) of employees working under him therefore, they did

not make any cooperation in the field regarding recovery as well as

with respect to installation of transformer therefore, less recovery

was made. He pleaded innocence.

4.

After receiving the reply respondent did not conduct the

departmental enquiry and passed the impugned order dated

21.04.2011 whereby petitioner has been inflicted with minor

penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative

effect. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

5.

It is the submission of counsel for the petitioner that when

3

show cause notice was issued by the respondents purportedly under

Rule 16 of The M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and

Appeal) Rules, 1966 and respondent denied the charges by filing

reply then it was imperative for the respondents to hold

departmental inquiry. He relied upon the Judgment of Apex Court in

the case of O.K.Bharadwaj Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2001) 9

SCC 180 in support of submission. According to him, once the

charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent

employee, full-fledged departmental inquiry is required to be

conducted.

6.

It is further submitted that in series of judgments including

the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Bholeram Soni Vs. Union of India and Ors. vide order dated

09.01.2015 passed in W.P.No.3021/2014 while relying upon the

judgment of O.K.Bharadwaj (supra), Division Bench allowed the

petition and quashed the order of punishment. He further relied

upon the order dated 02.01.2018 passed in M.P.No.1798/2017,

(Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ajay Agrawal), order dated

28.11.2017 passed in W.A.No.369/2017 (Dr. Arun Dubey Vs.

State of M.P. and Ors.) and order dated 30.01.2019 passed in

W.A.No.1673/2018 (Roop Singh Bhadoriya Vs. Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company) and submit that

petitioner was earlier inflicted with same punishment but on the

ground of ratio of O.K.Bharadwaj (supra) impugned order of

penalty was set-aside.

4

7.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and

placed the order dated 08.09.2020 passed by Division Bench of this

Court in bunch of writ petitions W.A.761/2020 (Ratan Singh

Silawat Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors. is the lead case) and submit

that the case of O.K.Bharadwaj (supra) deals in respect of Major

Penalty and since the present case is of Minor Penalty therefore,

ratio of O.K.Bharadwaj (supra) would not apply here. Looking to

the nature of allegations in show cause notice and the reply where

petitioner raised the stand that he is not competent to write the ACR

of subordinate employees, but said aspect has been specifically

dealt with and denied in the impugned order because previous year

he wrote the ACR of those employees. Thus, the defence as raised

by the petitioner was suitably and reasonably met by the

respondents. Therefore, no case is made out for interference. He

also relied upon the judgment of Division Ben