IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 30 OF MAY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 15240 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

SUDAMA SHARAN KUSHWAHA S/O LATE SHRI JHADU KUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SAHAYAK ADHYAPAK R/O VILLAGE VIJAYPURA TEHSIL SEONDHA DISTRICT DATIA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI PRATIP VISORIYA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COLLECTOR DISTRICT DATIA, (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. DISTRICT PROJECT COORDINATOR DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT SEONDHA DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI G.K. AGARWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA the following:

ORDER

The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been directed against the order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the Collector District Datia whereby on the basis of news published in Patrika Newspaper on 29.10.2022 that at about 11:30 am, Government Primary School Vijaypur was found closed and the students were standing outside the school, cognizance was taken by the Collector and as a consequence thereof, major penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner without holding any regular departmental enquiry.

2. The aforesaid order has been assailed on the ground that while imposing the aforesaid penalty, no charge-sheet was issued, no imputation of charges were framed, no regular departmental enquiry was conducted, no witnesses were called for proving the charge nor any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for cross-examining the witnesses was granted, therefore, the entire procedure adopted by the Collector in imposing such penalty is de hors the Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), 1966. Thus, it deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504, has contended that withholding of increment to pay with cumulative effect except after holding enquiry and following due steps is bad in law and the said order being without jurisdiction or authority of law is per se void.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA

4. Further reliance was placed in the matter of M.M. Mudgal Vs.

State of M.P. & Ors. reported in ILR 2012 (MP) 2651 wherein it has been held that if a penalty imposed is of such a nature, affecting the rights of an employee during service and ever after service, it has to be treated as major penalty, which cannot be imposed without conducting a full fledged enquiry as enumerated under Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), 1966 and admittedly, the penalty which has been imposed would affect the pay of the petitioner, during his service tenure as reduced pay would be paid to him as well as would affect him after his retirement, as his pension after his retirement would be reduced, thus, the said order is in utter violation of Rule 14 MPCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and admittedly, as no charge-sheet has been issued and only on the basis of show cause notice, penalty has been imposed which deserves to be quashed. He has further placed reliance in the matter of K.R. Shankara Kaimal Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. reported in 1995 MPLJ (SN) 54 wherein it has been held that the stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect amounts to major penalty and imposition of such major penalty after notice without following due procedure and without conducting a regular departmental enquiry is per se illegal.

5. Lastly, he has placed reliance in the matter of R.D. Panchoriya Vs. State of M