Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1974
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF, JJ
Ravi Mishra – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WA 1000/2025
Vishnu Deo Singh Chauhan,Advocate General
Minor penalties under the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules do not require a full departmental enquiry if no disputed facts are raised in the reply.
Headnote:(A) M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 - Rule 16 - Recovery of loss from public exchequer - Appellants, as Assistant Engineer and Sub Engineer, sanctioned construction of a stop dam found to be useless - Recovery of Rs.4,99,603/- each ordered without a full-fledged departmental enquiry - Court held that minor penalty does not require a regular enquiry if no disputed facts are presented in the reply - Findings of the learned Single Judge upheld. (Paras 10, 12)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice were adhered to as the appellants were given an opportunity to respond to the charge-sheet before the recovery order was passed. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were charged with negligence in the construction of a stop dam, which was later deemed useless, leading to a recovery order for losses incurred by the public exchequer. The appellants admitted their involvement but provided explanations for the defective work.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge found that a regular departmental enquiry was not necessary for imposing a minor penalty, and the recovery order was justified based on the evidence presented.
Issues: The main issues were whether a full departmental enquiry was necessary before imposing a minor penalty and whether the findings of the learned Single Judge were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that minor penalties can be imposed without a full enquiry if the reply does not raise disputed facts, affirming the learned Single Judge's findings as just and proper.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vinay Saraf
Appellants by taking exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.23618/2018 on 04.03.2025 has preferred the present intra court appeal.
2. Heard Shri Vishnu Deo Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants on the question of admission.
3. Short facts of the case are that, recovery from the present appellants to the tune of Rs.4,99,603/- each was ordered by order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shahdol Division, Shahdol.
4. Appellants were served with a charge-sheet dated 31.05.2018 upon the allegation that appellants were posted as Assistant Engineer and Sub Engineer related to the subject work and appellant No.1 after inspection, granted technical approval for the purpose of construction of stop dam and thereafter appellant No.2 certified the completion of work and permitted the utilization of the dam, whereas later on in inspection, it was found that the work had been executed in such a manner that the entire work is useless and there will be no utilization of the stop dam, which has been constructed. Therefore, charge - sheet issued to the appellants proposed minor penalty of recovery of the loss occurred to the public exchequer. The appellants filed their separate reply. However, in the reply, they did not deny the fact that they were concerned with the subject work.
5. Appellant No.1 in his reply did not take the defence that he was not concerned with the execution of work and on the contrary, he had duly admitted that stop dam was constructed as per his technical sanction. However, submitted an explanation that construction of storage weir was not feasible.
6. Appellant No.2 accepted in the reply that the work completion report was signed by him but offered the explanation that he joined on the post on 24.08.2017 and when he visited at the spot, water in the stop dam was up to full tank level and therefore, he had no occasion to verify the foundation work and therefore, he can't be held liable for the defective construction of stop dam.
7. By the charge-sheet itself, minor penalty was proposed and both appellants in their reply did not deny their connection with the construction of stop dam in question, which was found not suitable, therefore, after examining the reply by the impugned order, recovery of amount of Rs.4,99,603/- each was ordered from the appellants.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that no departmental enquiry was carried out before passing the order of recovery and the said order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the order has been passed on the basis of alleged inspection report dated 26.05.2018 of Superintendent Engineer, whereas he never visited the spot on that day and therefore, the basis of impugned order itself is incorrect and consequently the order of recovery is liable to be quashed.
9. After consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is apparent that the appellants were concerned with the construction of work of stop dam, which was found useless and the site was found suitable for construction of storage weir, but despite that technical sanction was given for construction of stop dam. From the order of recovery, it reveals that foundation of stop dam was sanctioned up to 2.10 meter, but actually the foundation depth was found only 1.20 and 0.95 meter due to which there was consistent leakage of water from the dam and under this circumstances, the impugned order of recovery was passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shahdol Division, Shahdol after affording opportunity to the appellants to submit their reply.
10. Learned Single Judge considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the recovery order has been passed without conducting full fledged departmental enquiry and held that for the purpose of imposing minor penalty, a regular departmental enquiry is not requ
