Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 263 (MP)

G. D. Purohit v. State of M. P.

2015-03-03

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2015
ORDER : VANDANA KASREKAR, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the original application, i.e., O.A. No. 2419/2000 challenging the order dated 4-1-2000 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the penalty of deduction of 10% of the amount from the pension of the petitioner has been imposed before the State Administrative Tribunal. After abolition of the Tribunal, the said application is transferred to this Court and is registered as W.P. No. 25426/2003. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Auditor by an order dated 1-4-1961. He worked in the said Department till he attained the age of superannuation. The respondent No. 3 had issued a memo dated 26-3-1993 to the petitioner for instituting a departmental enquiry against him under the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 on the basis of alleged inspection of Nagrik Bank, Sehore done by him. Along with the memo, the petitioner was served with the copies of charge sheet, statement of allegation and documents. Thereafter, respondent No. 3, vide order dated 15-4-1993, appointed one Shri G.K. Haksar as Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry and one Sultan Singh, Co-operative Inspector was appointed as Presiding Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and found that none of the charges levelled against him was found to be proved. 2. Being dissatisfied with the said report, respondent No. 3 decided to make fresh enquiry against the petitioner and issued an order dated 6-3-1995 thereby appointing one Shri B.C. Uaike as Enquiry Officer and Shri K.S. Kirar as Presiding Officer. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, submitted its report to respondent No. 3 whereby he found that out of 11 charges, only charge Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 9 were partly proved and charge Nos. 3 and 10 were proved. On the basis of the said enquiry report, respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 4-1-2000 thereby imposed the penalty of deduction of 10% from the amount of pension. Respondent No. 3 conveyed the said order to the petitioner vide letter dated 3-11-2000. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order dated 4-1-2000 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Respondent No. 3 conveyed the said order to the petitioner vide letter dated 3-11-2000. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order dated 4-1-2000 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. He further submits that earlier a departmental enquiry was held against him and the Enquiry Officer does not found prove the charges against the petitioner. However, without affording him any opportunity of hearing, the respondents have initiated re-enquiry against him. For the said purpose, he relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of B.S. Jaiswal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 1 JLJ 291 . He further submits that he was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is too harsh and disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. 4. The respondents have filed their reply. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents submits that for the misconduct committed by the petitioner, a charge sheet was issued and the Enquiry Officer as well as Presiding Officer were appointed for conducting the enquiry against the petitioner. She further submits that the enquiry was held against him as per the procedure prescribed in the CCA Rules and the Enquiry Officer vide its letter dated 13-3-1995 and 29-7-1995 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it appears that earlier a departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner and in the said enquiry, the Enquiry Officer does not found the charges as proved against the petitioner and, therefore, a re-enquiry was decided to be held against the petitioner, however, before holding the re-enquiry, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. This Court in the case of B.S. Jaiswal (supra), has held as under:-- "Dissatisfied with the reply of the charge sheet submitted by the petitioner, a disciplinary inquiry was conducted against him for the aforesaid charges of misconduct. The Inquiry Officer after conclusion of the inquiry submitted the inquiry report dated 6-12-1989 before the Disciplinary Authority. In the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty of both the charges and held that both the charges are not proved. The Inquiry Officer after conclusion of the inquiry submitted the inquiry report dated 6-12-1989 before the Disciplinary Authority. In the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty of both the charges and held that both the charges are not proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after going through the inquiry report dated 6-12-1989 submitted by the Inquiry Officer, disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on both the charges, recorded the finding of guilt of the petitioner in regard to both the charges and imposed penalty of reduction of pay of the petitioner to the minimum of the pay scale for a period of ten years and further ordered that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any increment during the said period of ten years and the period of suspension for all purposes shall be treated as period of suspension vide its order dated 14-2-1990 (Annexure A-10)." 6. So far as the show-cause notices dated 13-3-1995 and 29-7-1995 are concerned, the same are issued by the Enquiry Officer after he was appointed as Enquiry Officer but before appointing the new Enquiry Officer, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that if the Disciplinary Authority is dissatisfied with the findings of Enquiry Officer, then show-cause notice is required to be issued to the petitioner. 7. Similarly, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Kanailal Bera Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 517 , has held that the second enquiry on the same charge, which could not be proved during first enquiry is not permissible. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 6 of the judgment has held as under:-- "Once a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated, the same must be brought to its logical end meaning thereby a finding is required to be arrived at as to whether the delinquent officer is guilty of charges levelled against him or not. In a given situation further evidence may be directed to be adduced but the same would not mean that despite holding a delinquent officer to be partially guilty of the charges levelled against him another inquiry would be directed to be initiated on the selfsame charges, which could not be proved in the first inquiry." 8. In a given situation further evidence may be directed to be adduced but the same would not mean that despite holding a delinquent officer to be partially guilty of the charges levelled against him another inquiry would be directed to be initiated on the selfsame charges, which could not be proved in the first inquiry." 8. In the present case also, in the first enquiry charges are not found to be proved against the petitioner and, therefore, in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court, second enquiry on the same set of charge is not permissible. In the present case, as no financial loss is caused to the Bank and, therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is too harsh and disproportionate. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed. The order of penalty dated 4-1-2000 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to release the pension to the petitioner withheld by them.