Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 212 (MP)

Sadhulal Prajapati v. State of M. P.

2017-02-09

P.K.JAISWAL, VIRENDRA SINGH

body2017
ORDER 1. This intra Court appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, by the appellant (writ petitioner) against the order dated 10.11.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.7670/2015, whereby the learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition by holding that, no case for quashing charge sheet or the order of punishment of enquiry officer or presenting officer is made out. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Deputy Collector, Rewa, in the year 2012 and during his posting tenure as Deputy Collector, Rewa, he was appointed as officer-in-charge of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Rewa. The appellant during the posting as officer-in-charge in the office of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, considered and decided the case of Mandi Member namely M/s. Shankar Food Product and M/s. Banke Bihari Industries, regarding calculation and imposition of Mandi fees. He had passed the best judgment order dated 24.12.2012 in cases of M/s. Banke Bihari Industries and M/s. Shankar Food Product, granting exemption from payment of Mandi fee etc. Subsequently, the Managing Director of the M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board took suo motu action against the order passed by the appellant and passed the order dated 11.4.2014, quashing the order passed by the appellant on 24.12.2012. The Managing Director had found that the petitioner/appellant had passed illegal orders and had acted without jurisdiction. For passing these illegal and without jurisdiction orders and causing loss to the Government, a departmental enquiry has been initiated against the appellant and the appellant has been served with charge sheet dated 22.8.2014. He has filed reply to the charge sheet and thereafter vide order dated 10.7.2015, the enquiry officer and presenting officer have been appointed. 3. For passing these illegal and without jurisdiction orders and causing loss to the Government, a departmental enquiry has been initiated against the appellant and the appellant has been served with charge sheet dated 22.8.2014. He has filed reply to the charge sheet and thereafter vide order dated 10.7.2015, the enquiry officer and presenting officer have been appointed. 3. Aggrieved with the charge sheet and enquiry proceedings, the appellant had approached the writ Court for quashment of charge sheet and all the charges levelled by way of charge sheet dated 21.8.2014 and issuance of writ of mandamus to withdraw all the show cause notices issued against him on the ground that under section 57 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1972, (hereinafter referred as 'the Adhiniyam') he was empowered to exercise the powers conferred to the Mandi Committee and had power to proceed to assess Mandi fee in quasi judicial manner under the provisions of section 21 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1972. 4. The ground of attack before the learned Court was that wrong interpretation of law cannot be a ground for misconduct. The disciplinary authority had no information within its possession from where it could form an opinion that the appellant showed 'favour' to the assessee by not imposing the Mandi fee. He may have wrongly exercised his jurisdiction. But that wrong can be corrected in appeal. That cannot always form basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings for an officer while he is acting as quasi judicial authority. To maintain any charge sheet against a quasi judicial authority something more has to be alleged than a mere mistake of law, e.g., in the nature of some extraneous consideration influencing the quasi judicial order. Since nothing of the sort is alleged herein the impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed. 5. He also submitted that exemption granted by the appellant from payment of Mandi fee in terms of applicable circular filed as Annexure P-3. The assessment order passed by the appellant in case of M/s. Banke Bihari Industries and M/s. Shankar Food Product were not beyond his jurisdiction, therefore, the enquiry cannot be conducted against him. 6. The stand of the respondents before the writ Court was that the charge sheet has been issued by the competent authority therefore, merits of the charge cannot be examined at this stage. 6. The stand of the respondents before the writ Court was that the charge sheet has been issued by the competent authority therefore, merits of the charge cannot be examined at this stage. The appellant by illegally granting exemption of payment of Mandi fee in the case of M/s. Banke Bihari Industries and M/s. Shankar Food Product has caused huge loss to the Government, therefore, the enquiry has been initiated. The assessment orders were passed by the appellant beyond jurisdiction. A mere show cause notice or charge sheet does not infringe the right of any one. 7. The learned writ Court has observed that the appellant has not questioned the competence of the authority issuing the charge sheet. The scope of interference in such a matter at this stage is very limited. The plea that the appellant had jurisdiction to pass assessment orders needs to be examined on merit in the departmental enquiry. The allegation against the appellant is that he has wrongly assessed the Mandi fee in two cases, which had resulted into loss of Rs.1,24,40,386/- and Rs.79,16,385/-, hence the total loss caused to the State was Rs.2,03,57,321/-. The allegation against the appellant is that he had not properly examined the case as per rules and had exceeded his powers and passed the orders going beyond his jurisdiction. The order of assessment was passed under section 21 of the Adhiniyam. The learned Court also observed that one of the charge against the appellant is that he had passed the orders of assessment dated 24.12.2012, going beyond his jurisdiction. During pendency of the writ petition, the departmental enquiry has been concluded and enquiry report has been submitted on 8.9.2016 wherein the appellant has been found guilty of charge and, therefore, was of the opinion that no case for quashing the charge sheet or the order of appointment of enquiry officer or presenting officer is made out and dismissed the writ petition. 8. 8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the provisions of section 57 of the Adhiniyam, para 5 of the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Bhanwarlal Chandmal v. State of M.P. and others, reported as 1981 JLJ 612 =1981 MPLJ Pg.485, paras 40, 41, 42 and 43, of the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India, reported as AIR 1999 SC 2881 and para 32 and 36, of the apex Court judgment in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society and others, reported as (2013)6 SCC 515 , and submitted that a wrong interpretation of law cannot be a ground of misconduct. The appellant was appointed officer-in-charge of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Rewa and he had passed the assessment orders in exercising the power conferred under section 21 of the Adhiniyam and was performing the quasi judicial duty and, therefore, the act committed by him cannot be made subject matter of the departmental enquiry. The learned writ Court failed to appreciate that and committed an error in dismissing the writ petition. He further submitted that the complete exercise of assessment was done under the power conferred under section 21 of the Adhiniyam and, therefore, the same cannot be made the subject matter of the departmental enquiry, when his orders are appealable in the proper forum, his conduct should not be subjected to a disciplinary proceeding, unless the act reflects on his integrity, devotion to duty or prima facie there is material to show recklessness on his part and submitted that the writ appeal be allowed. 9. In reply Shri Piyush Jain, learned Government Advocate for the respondents – State has drawn our attention to Annexure P-4, order dated 24.12.2012 and sub-section (3) of section 21 of the Adhiniaym and submits that the State Government or any officer authorized by the State Government or the board may, on its or his own motion or an application made by the State Government; verify the statement verified by the Secretary. The appellant exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the aforesaid orders. The appellant exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the aforesaid orders. In respect of law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar (supra), he submitted that the same does not hold the field and drawn our attention to the case of Union of India and others v. Dulichand, reported as (2006)5 SCC 680 , and submits that the learned writ Court rightly appreciated the facts and the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the law laid down by the apex Court and has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 10. The case of the appellant is not at all covered under the parameters of the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar (supra), in relating to the quashment of charge sheet. Merely because a charge sheet has been issued that does not give rise to any cause of action until and unless a final order has been passed in the matter after evaluating the material established on record by the competent disciplinary authority. During the pendency of the writ petition an application for taking enquiry report on record and for vacating stay passed by the writ Court was filed on the ground that enquiry officer has submitted his enquiry report on 8.9.2016 to the State Government for necessary action on the said enquiry report wherein, the appellant has been found guilty of charge. One of the charge against the appellant was that he had exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the order dated 24.12.2012. 11. The law on the subject was considered in extenso in the three – Judge Bench decision of Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan [ (1993)2 SCC 56 ], wherein it was noted that the view that no disciplinary action could be initiated against an officer in respect of judicial or quasi judicial functions was wrong. It was further said that the officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers acting negligently or recklessly could be proceeded against by way of disciplinary action. The Court listed six instances when such action could be taken :- “28. It was further said that the officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers acting negligently or recklessly could be proceeded against by way of disciplinary action. The Court listed six instances when such action could be taken :- “28. (i) where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty; (ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty; (iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a government servant; (iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers; (v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a part; (vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago 'though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great' ”. 12. Ordinarily no writ lies against the charge sheet or show cause notice. A mere charge sheet or show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to adverse order, which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. The writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. In very rare and exceptional cases, the writ Court can quash the charge sheet or show cause notice or for some other reasons, if it is wholly illegal. In the case in hand, the charge sheet was issued by the competent authority and in the year 2016, the departmental enquiry has been concluded and enquiry report has been submitted and, therefore, we are of the view that the appellant failed to make out any case for quashment of charge sheet as per law laid down by the apex Court in catena of decisions. 14. Considering the whole aspect of the matter, we are of the view that no case for quashment of departmental enquiry or show cause notice or appointment of the presenting officer is made out. The writ appeal filed by the appellant has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed, but without any orders as to costs.