Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 294 (MP)

State of M. P. v. S. R. Sonwani

2002-03-11

BHAWANI SINGH, K.K.LAHOTI

body2002
JUDGMENT (Oral) Singh, C.J. - 1. Through this petition order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 8.3.1999 has been challenged by the State. Before we advert to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it would be necessary to mention some facts. 2. Respondent was Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Govt. of M.P., posted at Sidhi. For committing some financial irregularities, departmental enquiry was started against him under Rule 16 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, (for short, CCA Rules 1966). The respondent was visited with penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. 3. Against the penalty, appeal was filed before the Governor of the State. While it was pending consideration and decision, respondent moved the Tribunal through O.A. No. 3428/98 which has been allowed by the decision impugned in this case. 4. Shri D'Silva, learned Dy. A.G., submitted that respondent could not file the application before the Tribunal because it was barred by section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, requiring initiation of proceedings before the Tribunal within a period of one year and six months, where statutory appeal is provided against the action of the petitioners against the delinquent. 5. Shri S.S. Tripathi submits that the petitioners have not taken this objection before the Tribunal, nor in the writ petition. On the contrary, submission before the Tribunal was that filing of petition was premature. Above all, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners by taking cognizance, of the matter by the Tribunal. 6. We have given consideration to the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for parties. It is a fact that the petitioners have not raised the objection before the Tribunal. That being so, it cannot be allowed to be raised in this Court for the first time, particularly when it does not find mention in the memo of petition. The decision of the Tribunal quashes an order illegally passed. No prejudice is shown. We have been taken through the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Kulawant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, (1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504) and Union of India v. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 . Mohd. Ramzan's case has no application to the facts of this case. No prejudice is shown. We have been taken through the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Kulawant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, (1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504) and Union of India v. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 . Mohd. Ramzan's case has no application to the facts of this case. However, Kulwant Singh Gill's case is applicable since it holds that in case of major penalty, procedure provided for awarding the same has to be applied before punishment is awarded. Rule 10 of the C.C.A. Rules 1966 provides for minor and major penalties. With regard to minor penalty, issuance of show cause notice before inflicting minor penalty may be sufficient, but in case of major penalty, procedure provided under Rule 14 has to be followed. 7. It is not disputed that the respondent has been awarded punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. This is a major penalty, but procedure for imposition of major penalty under Rule 14 has not been followed. 8. Consequently, the order of punishment is liable to be set aside. The Tribunal has considered the matter quite judiciously before setting aside the order of punishment which is confirmed. 9. The petition is without merit and is dismissed.