Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 407 (MP)

K R RAI v. STATE OF M P

2009-03-31

R.S.JHA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 25/26. 06. 2002 whereby a punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner as well as the appellate order dated 22. 2. 2005 rejecting the petitioners appeal and the order dated 17. 5. 2005 by which his application for review has been rejected. ( 2. ) THE case of the petitioner, before this Court, is that the petitioner, who was working as an Additional Treasury Accountant in the establishment of the respondents, was served with a charge-sheet in relation to loss caused to the government to the tune of Rs. 80,961/- and was ultimately punished with reversion to the post of Account Assistant for a period of two years by order dated 24. 7. 1986 after conducting a departmental enquiry against him. On an appeal being preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, the matter was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 12. 2. 1988 directing the Disciplinary- Authority to reconsider the matter. The Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 19. 6. 1989, modified the order of punishment of reversion to that of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect with effect from 24. 7. 1986. ( 3. ) IT is stated that by that time the petitioner had already undergone the punishment of reversion on the post of Account Assistant for a period of two years and, therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal against the modified order of punishment, which suffered dismissal by order dated 2. 6. 1990. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an Original application before the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal which was registered as o. ANo. 1289/1991 and was allowed by order dated 6. 10. 1998, quashing the order of punishment as well as the Appellate order and directing the respondents to open the sealed cover and grant all benefits to the petitioner. It is stated that in the meanwhile, even prior to filing of the Original application before the Tribunal, the respondent / authorities promoted the petitioner on 29. 8. 1990 to the post of Internal Auditor and thereafter, subsequent to the order of the Tribunal, also granted him seniority on the post of Internal Auditor with effect from 28. 5. 1984 by order dated 28. 8. 1999 and also granted him due and proper placement in the seniority list. 8. 1990 to the post of Internal Auditor and thereafter, subsequent to the order of the Tribunal, also granted him seniority on the post of Internal Auditor with effect from 28. 5. 1984 by order dated 28. 8. 1999 and also granted him due and proper placement in the seniority list. ( 4. ) IT is submitted that the respondent/state being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal, filed a Writ Petition before this Court which was registered as W. P. No. 1364/1999. This Court ultimately disposed of the petition filed by the State by order dated 6. 3. 2002 on the ground that the State had failed to follow the procedure prescribed by the Rules. This Court also remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary authority with a direction to furnish a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner and, thereafter to continue the inquiry against the petitioner after giving him an opportunity to file his reply thereto. ( 5. ) IT is stated that pursuant to the orders of this Court, the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and he was given an opportunity to file his reply which was duly considered. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 25/26. 06. 2002 a punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect was imposed uponthepetitionerwitheffectfrom24. 7. 1986, which was modified by the Appellate authority by the impugned order dated 22. 2. 2005 to the extent that the order of stoppage of four increments would be effective prospectively from 26. 6. 2002. The Appellate Authority, while doing so, also took note of the fact that the petitioner had retired from service on 31. 7. 2002. The review application, filed by the petitioner, also suffered dismissal by the impugned order dated 17. 5. 2005, hence this petition. ( 6. ) THE petitioner, in the present petition, has claimed quashing of all the three impugned orders as stated above and has also prayed that he be considered for further promotion on the post of Dy. Director Accounts and Joint Director accounts. ( 7. ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the first order of punishment dated 24. 7. Director Accounts and Joint Director accounts. ( 7. ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the first order of punishment dated 24. 7. 1986 whereby the petitioner was reverted to the post of Account Assistant for a period of two years, the petitioner underwent the punishment and, therefore, the subsequent orders of modification of his order of punishment to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect after he had already suffered reversion for two years, could not have been imposed upon the petitioner for the same incident as it amounted to double jeopardy which is not permissible in law. It is further submitted that the State, by order dated 29. 6. 1990, promoted the petitioner as Internal Auditor and, thereafter, in implementation of the order of the Tribunal also granted him seniority on that post with effect from 28. 5. 1984 as well as proper placement in the seniority list above his juniors by order dated 28. 8. 1999 and in such circumstances, the respondent authorities were also bound to consider the petitioners case for further promotion on the post of dy. Director Accounts and Joint Director Accounts and grant him all benefits accruing thereto, ( 8. ) PER contra the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned orders of punishment have been passed by the authorities pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W. P No. 1364/1999 decided on 6. 3. 2002 wherein this Court has directed that the Disciplinary Authority should furnish a copy of the inquiry report upon the petitioner and thereafter proceed afresh from that stage in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned orders passed by the authorities. It is also submitted by the learned Govt. Advocate that the authorities, on re-examining the matter after it was remitted by this Court, found all the charges leveled against the petitioner to be proved and imposed a punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect which punishment is commensurate to the misconduct of the petitioner and as this Court does not sit as an appellate authority over disciplinary matters, the impugned orders imposing punishment upon the petitioner does not warrant any interference. It is also stated that as the impugned order of punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner in view of the direction issued by mis Court, the question of double jeopardy as raised by the petitioner does not arise for adjudication in the present petition. ( 9. ) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. From a perusal of the facts and documents on record it is clear that the Disciplinary authority initially imposed a punishment of reversion to a lower post for two years upon the petitioner which punishment was duly undergone by the petitioner. However, as the petitioner was a direct recruitee on the post of Addl. Treasury accountant and, therefore, could not be reverted to a post below the one to which he was recruited, the authorities modified the order of punishment to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect but by that time the petitioner had already suffered reversion for two years. It is also undisputed that all these orders of punishment were set aside by the Tribunal and full relief was granted to the petitioner but this Court in the petition filed by the State against the order of the tribunal, directed the respondent/authorities to re-decide the matter by furnishing a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner and thereafter proceed further from that stage and that the authorities and in view of the directions issued by this court, the respondents reinitiated action against the petitioner and again imposed a punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect with effect from 26. 6. 2002. ( 10. ) IT is settled law that this Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority over disciplinary proceedings and that interference of this Court in disciplinary matters is limited to cases of no evidence, perversity and Wednesbury unreasonableness. In the instant case, all the authorities have consistently found the charges proved against the petitioner based on the oral and documentary evidence on record and as far as these findings of fact are concerned, they do not suffer from any manifest perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. ( 11. ) IT is, however, seen that the respondent/authorities while imposing punishment upon the petitioner have failed to apply their mind to the past history of the case. ( 11. ) IT is, however, seen that the respondent/authorities while imposing punishment upon the petitioner have failed to apply their mind to the past history of the case. The authorities have failed to take notice of the fact that the petitioner had already undergone the punishment of reversion for two years imposed upon him by the initial order of punishment dated 24. 7. 1986 and, therefore, no further punishment would have been imposed upon him for the same incident and in such circumstances stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect by modifying the initial order of punishment, as if the initial order of punishment had not been implemented, indicates total non-application of mind on the part of the authorities. No reasonable person would impose a second punishment upon an incumbent who has already undergone one punishment for the same incident and, therefore, the act of the respondents in again and again reaffirming the order of punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect by ignoring the fact that the petitioner had already undergone the punishment of reversion for two years pursuant to the initial order of punishment dated 24. 7. 1986 smacks of total arbitrariness and perversity as no reasonable person in his right mind would have imposed such orders of punishment. ( 12. ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that, while the impugned orders of the authorities as far as they hold the petitioner guilty of the misconduct do not warrant interference, the impugned orders of punishment imposing a punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect deserve to be and are hereby quashed. ( 13. ) IT is pertinent to note the fact that the authorities immediately on completion of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner had promoted him to the post of Internal Auditor by order dated 29. 8. 1990 and thereafter in spite of pendency of the Writ Petition filed by the State, had granted him seniority on that post w. e. f. 28. 5. 1984 as well as proper placement in the seniority list of Internal Auditors by order dated 28. 8. 1999. In such circumstances, the respondent/authorities were also required to consider the case of the petitioner if he was eligible, in accordance with the rules, for further promotion as claimed by him in his representation dated 13. 4. 5. 1984 as well as proper placement in the seniority list of Internal Auditors by order dated 28. 8. 1999. In such circumstances, the respondent/authorities were also required to consider the case of the petitioner if he was eligible, in accordance with the rules, for further promotion as claimed by him in his representation dated 13. 4. 2005, a copy of which has been filed alongwith the petition as Annexure P-13. ( 14. ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, while I quash the impugned orders as far as they impose punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner, it is hereby directed that the respondent / authorities shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 13. 4. 2005 expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months from the date of furnishing a copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion upon the right and entitlement of the petitioner in respect of the representation made by him and the respondent/authorities would be at liberty to take a decision in accordance with law by either accepting or rejecting his representation. ( 15. ) WITH the aforesaid observation the petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed to the extent indicated, above. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to the costs. Petition allowed.