Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 285 (MP)

Chhaganlal Sharma v. State of M. P.

2005-02-23

S.K.SETH

body2005
ORDER 1. Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal Indore Bench, by filing an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') to assail the validity of the order dated 15.5.1995 (Annexure A-9) passed by the Settlement Officer, Dewas, order dated 20.5.1996 (Annexure A-12) and the order dated 31.7.1997 (Annexure A-15). By Annexure A-9, penalty of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect was imposed by the Settlement Officer Appeal preferred by petitioner to the Commissioner, Land and Settlement, was rejected by Annexure A-12 and thereafter revision preferred by the petitioner before State Government was partly allowed and instead of Withholding four increments penalty of Withholding of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner by Annexure A-15. After abolition of the Tribunal, matter has been transferred to this Court under provisions of M.P. Rajya Prashasanik Adhikaran (Lambit Evam Nirakrit Awedeno Ka Antaran) Adhyadesh, 2003; that is how it has come up for hearing before this Court. 2. I have heard Shri A.K. Sethi, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri L.R. Bhatnagar, learned Government Advocate for respondents at length. 3. The relevant facts are as under. By order dated 15.7.1994, petitioner was transferred in the same capacity from Patwari Circle 24 to Patwari Circle 34. The order was issued by Settlement Officer Dewas. Same day a modification was issued and petitioner was transferred to Patwari Circle 19 instead of Patwari Circle 34. Thereafter another order was issued or 30.7.1994 and transfer of petitioner to Patwari Circle 19 was cancelled and instead he was directed to go and resume duties at Patwari Circle 34, In compliance of order dated 15.7.1994 petitioner did no handover the charge of Patwari Circle 24 though the person posted in place of petitioner had reported for duty. For the disobedience of the order passed by the superior officer, petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 10.8.1994. On 23.8.1994 a regular charge sheet was issued and a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner. Petitioner submitted the reply and denied the charges levelled against him. Reply of petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory, therefore, the Disciplinary authority, by order dated 23.9.1994 appointed Enquiry Officer as well a Presenting Officer. Enquiry Officer, after recording evidence, submitted the report on 10.4.1995. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Petitioner submitted the reply and denied the charges levelled against him. Reply of petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory, therefore, the Disciplinary authority, by order dated 23.9.1994 appointed Enquiry Officer as well a Presenting Officer. Enquiry Officer, after recording evidence, submitted the report on 10.4.1995. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. After getting the enquiry report the Disciplinary Authority issued a notice to petitioner to show cause within ten days against the proposed punishment of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect. In response petitioner sought two weeks’ time as well as the inspection of record. He also demanded copies of the statement of witnesses who were examined in support of the charges. He also demanded a copy of enquiry report. The time and documents as prayed for were denied to petitioner Thereafter it appears that the petitioner submitted his reply on 15.5.1995, but the Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order dated 15.5.1995 itself. It appears that the reply could not be placed before the Disciplinary Authority when he passed the order on the same day. The Disciplinary Authority found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved on the basis of evidence collected during the enquiry and therefore, a penalty of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner Land and Records and Settlement. The appeal was rejected by order dated 20.5.1996. Thereafter petitioner preferred a review/revision before the State Government. After considering the material available on record, the State Government partially allowed the review/revision and reduced the penalty from withholding of four increments with cumulative effect to with holding of two increments with cumulative effect. 4. Shri Sethi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner vehemently argued that the charges levelled against petitioner were baseless. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the transfer order dated 15.7.1994 itself was cancelled, therefore there was no question of handing over the charge. It was also contended that when petitioner was directed to appear in person on 3.8.1994 so that he could be examinee by the Medical Board, petitioner submitted a reply that he will face the Medical Board as soon as he recovers from illness. It was also contended that when petitioner was directed to appear in person on 3.8.1994 so that he could be examinee by the Medical Board, petitioner submitted a reply that he will face the Medical Board as soon as he recovers from illness. It was also contended by Shri Seth that as regards the third charge regarding disobedience of Government orders, when the order dated 15.7.1994 was already cancelled/modified, therefore, there is no question of disobedience. As regards last charge, it was contended that it is too vague. Shri Sethi further contended that there was no occasion for petitioner to avoid appearance on 3.8.1994 in view of order dated 30.7.1994. Lastly it was contended that because of order passed by the Minister, the Settlement Officer was annoyed with the petitioner and, therefore the initiation as well as imposition of penalty are tainted with malafide. 5. Per contra, Shri Bhatnagar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents, justified the action. It was contended by Shri Bhatnagar that power of Collector stood vested with the Settlement Officer. In view of order of the State Government dated 23.6.1993 Settlement Officer was competent to issue the transfer order. It was contended by Shri Bhatnagar that the plea of malafide is nothing but an afterthought and cannot be looked into in absence of person against whom the allegation of malafide is levelled. Shri Bhatnagar also submitted that charges were duly proved and adequate punishment has been awarded to petitioner which does not call for any interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After having heard learned counsel for parties at length, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no merit and substance in the petition. The charges were proved in the departmental enquiry in accordance with rules. The indiscipline shown by the petitioner was unwarranted any person entering the Government service, from day one knows that his job is transferable. In the present case it was found that petitioner tried to avoid the transfer order by disobeying the order of the superior officer. 7. In view of the charges which were found proved, the State Government has imposed a penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect which in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be said to be improper. 7. In view of the charges which were found proved, the State Government has imposed a penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect which in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be said to be improper. The definite charges were proved and it cannot be said that charges were baseless. I also find no force in the contention of Shri Sethi that initiation of the departmental enquiry was actuated by malice on the part of Settlement Officer. If that was so, then it was for the petitioner to implead the Settlement Officer by name as respondent so that he could have explained the alleged malice. Undisputedly the then Settlement Officer who issued the charges was no impleaded by name in the original application. The scope of interference it the departmental enquiry with punishment order is very limited. This Court only exercises powers of supervisory jurisdiction to see that the departmental enquiry is held as per rules. This Court cannot go into punishment order because that is the exclusive domain of the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel for petitioner was unable to point out that petitioner suffered any prejudice because of non-supply of the enquiry report. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, find no merit and substance in the petition same is accordingly dismissed. However in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs Parties shall bear their own costs.