Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 272 (MP)

G. P. Gupta v. State of M. P.

2013-02-28

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2013
JUDGMENT : This petition was originally filed as O.A. No. 219/2001 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, calling in question the order dated 1-12-2000 by which a penalty of recovery of Rs. 51,007/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner is ordered. After closure of the Tribunal, the petition has been transmitted to this Court and is registered as writ petition. 2. Brief facts giving rise of filing this petition are that the petitioner, who was working as Sub Registrar in the Registration Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh, was charge-sheeted for alleged misconduct vide charge-sheet dated 26-12-1997. In all 9 charges were levelled against the petitioner stating that by not charging the stamp duty rightly on the document to be registered, monetary loss was caused to the State Government. The petitioner filed his reply to the charge-sheet and a direction was given to conduct the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Since the petitioner has superannuated from service in the meantime, a request was made by the petitioner that the enquiry may be conducted at Katni looking to his ill-health. Such a prayer was earlier considered. The enquiry was being conducted at Katni. However, since certain reports were submitted by the persons, who were to be examined as witnesses in the enquiry relating to apprehension in their mine that they will put to dire consequences in case they appear in the enquiry at Katni, the direction was given to conduct the enquiry at Maihar. The petitioner could not appear in the enquiry as his request for change of place was not considered and ultimately a report was drawn and sent to the competent authority. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of three charges namely Charges No. 1, 2 and 5. So far as other charges are concerned in the enquiry report, the petitioner was completely exonerated. Accepting the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner of which the reply was submitted by him. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter issued the order impugned on 1-12-2000 imposing the penalty aforesaid. 3. The main contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that with respect to the allegations made in Charge No. 2, the document placed by Maihar Cement Company was not earlier registered as it was said that proper registration fees and stamp duty is not paid. 3. The main contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that with respect to the allegations made in Charge No. 2, the document placed by Maihar Cement Company was not earlier registered as it was said that proper registration fees and stamp duty is not paid. Against such an action of Collector of Stamps, an appeal was preferred by the said Maihar Cement Company before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, which was allowed on 5-10-2000 categorically holding that the valuation done by the company was correct and according to that the stamp duty and registration fees was to be paid. This order passed in appeal was well within the knowledge of the Collector of Stamps as this document was subsequently registered and, therefore, the findings recorded in respect of Charge No. 2 were incorrect. As far as Charge No. 5 is concerned, it is said that the document registered on 27-8-1997 was valued on the basis of the guidelines prescribed and, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to dispute the valuation put in the document. The registration of the said document was done on the payment of the requisite stamp duty and registration fees. As far as Charge No. 1 is concerned, it is stated that the house said to be transferred by the said document was only a residential house and it was not classified as a non-residential accommodation, therefore, the valuation of the document was done treating it a document of transfer of residential building. There was no occasion for the petitioner to dispute the same. It is contended that these facts though were pointed out by the petitioner, were never looked into by the Disciplinary Authority and illegally the order of punishment was issued. 4. Per contra, it is contended by learned Deputy Govt. Advocate that in the departmental enquiry full opportunity of defence was extended to the petitioner and he was allowed to take part in the enquiry, adduce evidence and cross-examine the witnesses. On his own since the petitioner absented from the enquiry, the same was conducted ex parte and a report was submitted in that respect. Advocate that in the departmental enquiry full opportunity of defence was extended to the petitioner and he was allowed to take part in the enquiry, adduce evidence and cross-examine the witnesses. On his own since the petitioner absented from the enquiry, the same was conducted ex parte and a report was submitted in that respect. The report submitted by the Enquiry Officer was rightly appreciated by the Disciplinary Authority and order was rightly issued, therefore, no interference in the order of penalty is called for by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is vehemently contended by learned Deputy Govt. Advocate that this Court would not exercise its powers of judicial review in the given circumstances unless it is demonstrated that the procedure laid down under the rules was not followed or the order of penalty was not supported by any evidence. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at length and examining the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Disciplinary Authority has not rightly appreciated the facts as have come on record and has passed an unreasoned order without even discussing the facts, which were raised by the petitioner before the said authority. From the perusal of the order it is clear that only the charges were re-produced, fact was recorded that the enquiry was got conducted, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was issued second show cause notice of which a reply was submitted by him. How the charges No. 1, 2 and 5 were found proved despite the facts stated herein above, has not been discussed or mentioned. If the Appellate Authority has passed an order and has allowed the appeal of person, who was claiming registration of a document, the effect of allowing such an appeal was required to be looked into with respect to Charge No. 2 levelled against the petitioner. This particular order has not been referred nor has been taken note of by the Disciplinary Authority while holding that Charge No. 2 was rightly found proved against the petitioner. Materially important evidence was overlooked by the Disciplinary Authority and, therefore, this Court would not hesitate in interfering in the order of penalty. Same was the situation with respect to Charges No. 1 and 5. Materially important evidence was overlooked by the Disciplinary Authority and, therefore, this Court would not hesitate in interfering in the order of penalty. Same was the situation with respect to Charges No. 1 and 5. Therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is not just and proper and cannot be granted stamp of approval by this Court. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 1-12-2000 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to take into consideration the facts as have been recorded herein above, to examine whether Charges No. 1, 2 and 5 are still to be found proved against the petitioner and whether any actual monetary loss is caused to the State Government on account of any act of the petitioner. After recording the findings in this respect, the Disciplinary Authority will pass an order afresh. Since the petitioner has retired long back, aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of order. Needless to say, in case the petitioner is exonerated of the charges, he would be entitled to refund of the entire amount deducted from his pensionary benefits with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. This be also done within the aforesaid period. 7. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.