Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1220 (MP)

Om Prakash Lakshkar v. M. P. State Civil Supplies

2009-10-27

S.C.SHARMA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by an order dated 18/6/2004 passed by the Managing Director, M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation, Limited by which a punishment of recovery has been inflicted upon the petitioner. ( 2. ) The contention of the petitioner is that he was holding the post of Assistant Manager in the year 1997-1998 and was posted at Baradwar Mandi in Chhattisgarh. In has been further stated that during the paddy session purchases were made from the Mandi under Price Support Scheme and the paddy was stored in an open area and the same was lying in an open area for a period of about 8 months. The petitioner has further stated that as the paddy was lying in open area shortage in respect of quantity was detected and the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 5/7/2001. The petititoner did submit a reply to the show cause notice and it was categorically stated by the petitioner that on account of heavy rains there is a loss in the quantity and also keeping in view the fact that the goods were lying in an open area the loss in quantity has resulted. The respondents after receiving reply of the petitioner have issued a charge sheet on 29/1/2009 and the charge levelled against the petitioner alleges that the petitioner has not stored the paddy properly. The contention of the petitioner is that the imputation of misconduct does not reflect that as to what misconduct, the petitioner has committed and the charge levelled against him a vague charge. The petitioner has further stated that a reply was submitted by him and thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and after enquiry he has submitted a detailed enquiry report. The Inquiry Officer has held the petitioner as well as one Manmohan Raghuvanshi Junior Assistant, guilty of the charge levelled against them. The petitioner has also stated that the Inquiry Officer has also observed in the enquiry report that on account of excessive rainfall there was a loss in the quantity of paddy stored by the Corporation. The Inquiry Officer has also observed that 2/3rd loss should be recovered from the petitioner and l/3rd loss should be recovered from Manmohan Raghuvanshi. The petitioner has also stated that the Inquiry Officer has also observed in the enquiry report that on account of excessive rainfall there was a loss in the quantity of paddy stored by the Corporation. The Inquiry Officer has also observed that 2/3rd loss should be recovered from the petitioner and l/3rd loss should be recovered from Manmohan Raghuvanshi. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Managing Director, of the Corporation while passing the impugned order dated 18/6/2004 has ordered recovery of Rs. 3,85,833.40 against the petitioner only and one Manmohan Raghuvanshi who was also held guilty by the Inquiry Officer has been exonerated by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has relied upon ajudgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinary and Petrochemicals Ltd. and others v. Girish Chandra Sarma (2007) 7 SCC 206 . The contention of the petitioner is that in the light of the judgment delivered by the apex Court he cannot be made a scapegoat for collective decision in which others have also collectively participated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon ajudgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Government of A.P. and others v. A Venkata Raidu (2007) 1 SCC 338 wherein the apex Court has held that the charge sheet should not be vague but should be specific. ( 3. ) Areply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2 and it has been stated that the petitioner was an Assistant Manager and in-charge of the Mandi at the relevant point of time. The respondent have further stated that in identical circumstances a writ petition was filed before the principal seat at Jabalpur i.e. W.P. No. 3006/2003 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 23.8.2003 with a direction to the respondent Corporation to hold an enquiry in the matter and to recover the loss, if any, from the responsible persons. The respondents have further stated that the Inquiry Officer has held the petitioner guilty of the alleged misconduct and, therefore, as the petitioner was granted opportunity of hearing in the departmental enquiry, the question of setting aside the punishment order does not arise. The respondents have further stated that the Inquiry Officer has held the petitioner guilty of the alleged misconduct and, therefore, as the petitioner was granted opportunity of hearing in the departmental enquiry, the question of setting aside the punishment order does not arise. It has also been stated in the return that against the order of punishment no appeal has been preferred before the Board of Directors and, therefore, as no appeal has been preferred, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. ( 4. ) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. ( 5. ) In the present case the petitioner was posted as Assistant Manager in the year 1997-98 at Baradwar Mandi in Chhattisgarh. During the aforesaid period he has purchased paddy under the Price Support Scheme and the same was kept in open space. The respondent have issued a charge sheet on 29/1/2002 and the charge levelled against the petitioner reads as under :-The aforesaid allegation of misconduct reveals that the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for not storing the paddy properly and that is the only allegation levelled against the petitioner. Not only this, another employee namely Manmohan Raghuvanshi who was also posted at the relevant point of time when the paddy was purchased and stored was also charge-sheeted. The enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer establishes that on account of heavy rainfall there was a loss in quantity of paddy. The Inquiry Officer in the conclusive paragraph of the enquiry report has also observed that the delinquent government servants are not solely responsible for the loss as the same was on account of heavy rainfall they should be given the benefits as decided by the Board in the matter in respect of the quantity on account of excessive rainfall. It is pertinent to note that the Inquiry Officer has also not discussed any violation of procedure/statutory provisions committed by the petitioner in the matter of storage of paddy. Not only this, the disciplinary authority has exonerated the respondent No. 3 who was also an identically placed employee on the ground that Manmohan Raghuvanshi was relieved at the relevant point of time i.e. on the date of paddy was delivered out of Mandi and therefore, as Manmohan Raghuvanshi was not posted at Baradwar Mandi in Chhattisgarh no loss can be recovered from him. The allegation of misconduct alleged in respect of storage of paddy in the premises of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Baradwar Mandi in Chhattisgarh and Manmohan Raghuvanshi was very much posted at the time paddy was stored and kept at Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti, Baradwar Mandi in Chhattisgarh. The apex Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinary and Petrochemicals Ltd. and others v. Girish Chandra Sharma (2007) 7 SCC 206 in paragraph has held as under :- "18. After going through the report and the finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court, we are of opinion that in fact the Division Bench correctly assessed the situation that the respondent alone was made a scapegoat whereas the decision by all three Committees was unanimous decision by all these members participating in the negotiations and the price was finalised accordingly. It is not the respondent alone who can be held responsible when the decision was taken by the Committee. If the decision of the Committee stinks, it cannot be said that the respondent alone stinks; it will be arbitrary. If all fish stink, to pick one and say only it stinks is unfair in the matter of unanimous decision of the Committee." Thus in view of the judgment delivered by the apex Court the petitioner cannot be made a scapegoat as he was not the only person responsible for the shortage of paddy, if any. ( 6. ) The apex Court in the case of Government of A.P. and others v. A Venkata Raidu (2007) 1 SCC 338 ) in paragrpah 9 has held as under :-"9. We respectfully, agree with the view taken by the High Court. It is a settled principle of atural justice that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry then copies of that material should be supplied to the party against whom such enquiry is held. In charge No. 1 what is mentioned is that the respondent violated the orders issued by the Government. However, no details of these orders have been mentioned in Charge No. 1. It is well settled that a charge-sheet should not be vague but should be specific. The authority should have mentioned the date of the GO. which is said to have been violated by the respondent, the number of that GO. etc. but that was not done. However, no details of these orders have been mentioned in Charge No. 1. It is well settled that a charge-sheet should not be vague but should be specific. The authority should have mentioned the date of the GO. which is said to have been violated by the respondent, the number of that GO. etc. but that was not done. Copies of the said GOs or directions of the Governments were not even placed before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, charge No. 1 was not specific and hence no finding of guilt can be fixed on the basis of that Charge. Moreover, as the High Court has found, the respondent only renewed the deposit already made by his predecessor. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot be found guilty for the offence charged." Keeping in view the judgment deliverd by the apex Court it is evident that the charge sheet should not be a vague charge-sheet but should be specific. The respondent have not pointed out any violation of any Government order nor violation of any procedure which was required to be followed while storing the paddy and, therefore, the charge sheet in the present case is certainly a vague charge-sheet. ( 7. ) Keeping in view the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the aforesaid cases, it is evident that for collective decisions in which others have also participated, the petitioner has been made scapegoat. The respondents No. 1 and 2 in their own wisdom have exonerated the respondent No. 3, though the Inquiry Officer has categorically held the respondent No. 3 also guilty of the alleged misconduct. Not only this, the charge levelled against the petitioner reflects that the petitioner has not stored the paddy properly. Except for mentioning that the paddy was not stored properly, the imputation of misconduct does not allege any other irregularity nor improper storage has been explained in the imputation of misconduct. It is the case, where on the basis of vague charge, the petitioner has been held guilty of this misconduct. This Court has carefully gone through the charge sheet, enquiry report as well as the order passed by the respondents and keeping in view the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Government of A.P. and others (supra), the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Resultantly the order dated 18.6.2004 is hereby quashed. This Court has carefully gone through the charge sheet, enquiry report as well as the order passed by the respondents and keeping in view the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Government of A.P. and others (supra), the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Resultantly the order dated 18.6.2004 is hereby quashed. Resultantly, the present writ petition is allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.