IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 6 OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 8997 of 2016 BETWEEN:-

SUBHASH KARDEKAR S/O LATE SHRI H.V.KARDEKAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LTD. THR MANAGING DIRECTOR BHOPA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND A) MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LTD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY L T D GWALIOR ZONE GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is arising out of the order dated 31.05.2016 passed by the Respondents by which the penalty of withholding of annual increment with cumulative effect alongwith recovery of Rs.1,48,928/- has been imposed.

Signature Not Verified

2. Brief facts of the case are that vide letter dated 06.09.2014, the present petitioner was issued charge-sheet with regard to illegality/irregularity committed by him at Sumawali Distribution Center as Assistant Manager and a reply was sought within 15 days but since the petitioner didn't submit its reply, vide order dated 19.01.2015, the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer to conduct a departmental inquiry were appointed and after completion of the said departmental inquiry, in enquiry report dated 27.07.2015, charge No.1 was found to be proved and on the basis of aforesaid, a penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect for two years was imposed alongwith recovery of Rs.2,13,700/- (Rs.25,000/- in eight installments and Rs.13,700/- as the last installment) was proposed. In pursuance to the aforesaid proposal of penalty, vide show-cause notice dated 19.08.2015, the disciplinary authority called upon the petitioner to submit its reply within a period of 15 days, to which on 24.09.2015, a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner and pleaded his innocence.

3. Vide order dated 12.10.2015, show-cause notices dated 19.08.2015 and 01.10.2015 relating to the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner were withdrawn with immediate effect but again vide show-cause notice dated 12.10.2015 on the basis of same inquiry report dated 27.07.2015 and it was informed to the petitioner that charge No.1 is found to be proved against him and therefore, why penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect alongwith recovery of Rs.1,48,928/- be not inflicted upon him and 15 days' time was granted to him and thereafter, vide 31.10.2015, the order of punishment was passed. Immediately, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said order which was dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2016 and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was upheld.

Signature Not Verified Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned orders (Annexure P/1 to P/3) are manifestly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, therefore, they are required to be set aside.

5. It was further argued that from bare perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it could be gathered that there is absolutely no reflection of any reason and as the Appellate Authority is the last authority to consider the facts of the matter was therefore required to give a reasoning while passing the order but in absence thereof, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the matter be remitted back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. 6. It was further argued that the Board has acted in a very arbitrary and illegal manner, as firstly it had issued notice to the Contractor for recovery of the amount and thereafter, the same amount has been directed to be recovered from