Disciplinary proceedings against a government servant require a regular departmental inquiry if the servant denies the charges. Summary punishment without such an inquiry, or based on non-supplied adverse material, violates natural justice and invalidates the disciplinary action, especially where there is significant unexplained delay.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

“i- That, the impugned order (Ann. P/1 and P/2) may kindly be quashed.

ii- That, respondents may kindly be directed to retain the petitioner at proper place in his seniority, when he would have been placed at the time of his regular promotion, as there would not have been any punishment order/enquiry, with all consequential benefits.

iii- That, other relief which may deem fit may also be granted.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was holding the post of Additional Collector but since 4.10.2012 to 5.4.2014 petitioner was on deputation in Mandi Board holding the post of Deputy Director. At the relevant point of time, when petitioner was posted as Deputy Director in Madhya Pradesh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Gwalior, a general direction and instruction was issued vide letter dated 14.8.2013 in order to prevent issuance of forged license in Mandi Area. It is further submitted that thereafter on 28.3.2014 a show-cause notice (Annexure P/5) was issued to petitioner. Immediately, petitioner submitted a reply to show-cause notice on 4.4.2014 (Annexure P/6). Another show-cause notice dated 17.9.2014 was issued by the Marketing Board. Thereafter, Additional Director Finance (Shri Dinesh Dwivedi) Mandi Board conducted fact-finding enquiry dated 17.6.2015. Thereafter, charge-sheet dated 5.8.2016 was issued under Rule 16 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity “the Rules”). Immediately, petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter, fact-finding enquiry was conducted by Additional Director, Finance (Shri Rajesh Singh Kaurav). Again fact-finding enquiry was conducted by the Joint Director, Mandi Board, Gwalior. It is further submitted that in the said enquiry nothing was mentioned against petitioner rather it was mentioned that petitioner was not found in guilty and no charges levied against petitioner were found to be proved. Thereafter, no decision was taken by respondents; therefore, petitioner filed W.P. No.933/2017 which was decided on 8.2.2017 and it was directed to respondent to conclude the enquiry expeditiously. Thereafter, opinion was sent by the Mandi Board by letter dated 6.3.2017 and Agriculture Department was also sent opinion dated 18.4.2017. After taking advice from the MPPSC, the General Administration Department issued a punishment order by which punishment of censure was imposed upon petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner denied the charges and stated that the fact-finding enquiry is in his favour, however, without following due process of law, the State Government directly passed the punishment order of censure which was challenged by petitioner by filing W.P. No.6587/2017 which was dismissed vide order dated 08.03.2018 by this Court as the petitioner was having an alternative remedy. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a W.A.No.510/2018 which was decided on 4.12.2018 by which respondent/appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal own its merit as expeditiously as possible within a period of 45 days. Thereafter, the appeal preferred by petitioner was rejected vide order dated 1.2.2020 (Annexure P/2). It is further submitted that petitioner denied the charges by filing his counter/reply then as per judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and others reported in [(2001) 9 SCC 180], the regular departmental enquiry is necessar