Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 653 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Rajaram

2002-07-11

CHANDRESH BHUSHAN, R.B.DIXIT

body2002
JUDGMENT The Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior, vide its impugned order dated 6.11.1998 considering the impact of a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1992 MPST 5, came to the conclusion that the punishment of respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside on the ground that he was not furnished with copy of the enquiry report and did not issue any show cause notice before passing the final order, punishing him with a major penalty and consequently quashed the order of punishment with liberty to initiate the departmental proceedings afresh against him from the stage of issue of a regular notice after furnishing a copy of the enquiry report. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its larger Bench decision in the case of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1075, has observed that when the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him., The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether, in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the quality and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an 'unnatural expansion of natural justice' which in itself is antithetical to justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court further reiterated the same principle in the case of Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 310 . It amounts to an 'unnatural expansion of natural justice' which in itself is antithetical to justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court further reiterated the same principle in the case of Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 310 . Relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and another v. R.K. Rai and another, reported in 2002 (2) MPLJ 569 , it was argued by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that in view of Rule 17 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, there was no necessity to establish any prejudice. It was submitted by him that mere non-furnishing of enquiry report was sufficient to set aside final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. After hearing both the sides we are of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Karunakar (supra) and Union Bank of India (supra) this contention of respondent No. 1 cannot be up held. Moreover, Rule 17 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, provides for supply of a copy of the enquiry report with the final order of the Disciplinary, Authority and not prior to the passing of the final order. Now, so far as the present case is conc1-ned, respondent No.1 has also annexed enquiry report with Enquiring Officer's letter dated 31.1.1997 that means he was in possession of the enquiry report before filing of the petition before the Tribunal wherein no mention was made regarding any prejudice having been caused to him in the absence of furnishing of enquiry report. No prejudice has further been pleaded in the return filed in this petition. It may be noticed that in his explanation dated 29.3.1996 furnished before the Disciplinary Authority the respondent No. 1 has partly admitted the relevant facts stating that whole embezzelled amount was deposited in his bank account and thereafter after withdrawing the said amount he handed over the amount to one Smt. Kusum Gupta who rewarded him by presenting Rs. 20,000/- out of it as a share for committing embezzlement. He has shown his willingness to re-deposit the amount in instalments. Thus, the conclusion was that respondent No. 1 was well awdare of the result of enquiry against him in view of his admissions noted hereinabove. 20,000/- out of it as a share for committing embezzlement. He has shown his willingness to re-deposit the amount in instalments. Thus, the conclusion was that respondent No. 1 was well awdare of the result of enquiry against him in view of his admissions noted hereinabove. In the circumstances in our opinion no prejudice was caused to the respondent No.1 on account of non-furnishing of the enquiry report. The learned counsel of respondent No.1 has further urged that he had raised several contentions before the Tibunal which were not considered in the impugned order. Therefore, he prayed that in case if this Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside then the matter should be remanded for consideration on those other contentions raised by him before the Tribunal. However, we are of the opinion that the mere perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the only point raised before the Tribunal was about non-furnishing of the enquiry report. It shows that other contentions as raised in the petition itself were not pressed before the Tribunal. In the circumstances the question of remanding the matter to the Tribunal does not arise. In the result, in our opinion the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal suffers from grave illegality. In the circumstances the petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is hereby set aside.