IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI th ON THE 06 OF MARCH, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 29869 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

DR. P. M. MISHRA S/O SHRI S. N. MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL

1.

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MANIT CAMPUS, BHOPAL, ADDRESS:

4/12, MANIT CAMPUS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

DR. SANJAY SONI S/O SHRI LAKHANLAL SONI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, MAULANA AZAD

2.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MANIT CAMPUS, BHOPAL, ADDRESS: 4/5, MANIT CAMPUS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI ROHIT JAIN - ADVOCATE)

AND MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, MANIT, LINK ROAD NO.3, NEAR MATA MANDIR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI YOGESH BHATNAGAR - ADVOCATE)

................................................................................................................................................

Reserved on : 29.02.2024 Pronounced on : 06.03.2024 ................................................................................................................................................

This petition having been heard and reserved, coming on for pronouncement this day, the court pronounced the following:

ORDER

Pleadings are complete, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners assailing the orders dated 21.11.2023 contained in Annexure-P/6 whereby they have been given a memorandum (show-cause notice) giving reference of judgment dated 12.09.2023 passed by Special Judge, CBI, convicting the petitioners under the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, awarded sentence of 3 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/-, failing which 6 months' further R.I. Sentence of 3 years awarded by the Court separately for each of the offences and all the sentences to run concurrently, as such, memorandum was issued to the petitioners saying that conviction involving moral turpitude warrants imposition of major penalty of removal from service.

3. The said memorandum was issued to the petitioners giving them an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed so that Board of Governors may consider and pass appropriate order thereof.

4. The challenge is made mainly on the ground that issuing memorandum is an empty formality because the authority is predetermined to impose major penalty of removal and also acted on a direction issued by the CBI, therefore, their decision is not independent and is without application of mind as they were influenced with the dictum of CBI.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were serving with the respondent Department diligently but they got involved in a false criminal case which ended with their conviction, against which appeal was preferred by them before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, wherein the High Court suspended the sentence awarded to the petitioners.

He submits that as per Rule-19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1965'], an opportunity is required to be given to the employees before taking any action in pursuance to their conviction. In the case at hand, the impugned memorandum was issued, but according to learned counsel for the petitioners, that memorandum is an empty formality because it reveals that the authorities have already decided to impose major punishment of removal from service, as such, that memorandum is issued in violation of principle of natural justice and contrary to the basic object of Rule-19 of the Rules, 1965. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments p