Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 927 (MP)

Manoj Kumar Pancholi v. State of M. P.

2018-10-30

SHEEL NAGU

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked to assail the charge sheet vide Annexure P-1 dated 22.9.2018 issued by the Commissioner, Higher Education against the petitioner who happens to be a Head Clerk and is presently under suspension. 2. The learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. The principal ground of challenge raised by the learned counsel for petitioner is that the charges are unspecific and vague which disable the petitioner to prepare his defence and therefore the plea of denial of reasonable opportunity is raised. 4. A bare perusal of the charges alleged against the petitioner which arise out of certain complaints made by the lady teachers at Government Girls Post Graduate College, Morar reveal petitioner conducts himself in an indecent manner with the lady teachers and frequently utters abusive language against them on various occasions. The complaints of similar nature of Class-IV women employees are also a part of the charges. 5. A bare perusal of the imputation of allegations in the charge sheet though ostensibly reveals a case of vague and unspecific charges but in actuality and reality if the practicalities of life are seen then in matter of this nature even if the allegation is slightly vague the charge by itself does not become vitiated. 6. The complaints made by the Class IV women employees and the lady teachers appear to be oral and not in writing. The charge sheet is supported by list of documents which does not contain the written complaints but it is further supported by list of witnesses who are the complainants who made oral complaints against the petitioner against his indecent behaviour. 7. The law in regard to interference with disciplinary proceedings is very well settled. Interference is available on very limited grounds and the main one is that bare reading of the charge sheet does not disclose any misconduct. In the instant case, the bare reading of the charge sheet prima facie discloses misconduct against the petitioner and therefore the said ground is not available to the petitioner. 8. The other ground is of charge being vague and unspecific for which the decision of the apex Court in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni v.. In the instant case, the bare reading of the charge sheet prima facie discloses misconduct against the petitioner and therefore the said ground is not available to the petitioner. 8. The other ground is of charge being vague and unspecific for which the decision of the apex Court in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni v.. Y.P. Education Society and ors., reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515 , is relied upon wherein it has been held as under : “16..........The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. (Vide State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723 , Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1986 SC 995 , U.P. SRTC v. Ram Chandra Yadav, reported in AIR 2000 SC 3596 , Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78 and Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, reported in (2011)14 SCC 379 ).” 9. It is seen from the record that no specific date or nature of the indecent act or abusive words have been mentioned in the charge sheet but that by itself cannot render the entire charge sheet vitiated. 10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid decision of the apex Court reveal that the ground of vagueness of charge was castigated in the factual background that the charge sheet therein alleged violation of certain executive instructions without supplying the copy of the same or without giving details of the same. The said decision is of no avail to the petitioner since in the instant case the lady teachers and employees who had made complaints against the petitioner are specifically named in the charge sheet and it is always open to the petitioner to seek copy of the written complaints if available of the said teachers or else, it is open to the petitioner to cross-examine them as and when they are produced to support the charges. 11. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner has also alleged the ground of bias and mala fide by citing the decision in the case of State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna and ors., reported in (2001) 2 SCC 330 to contend that the entire action of issuance of charge sheet is vitiated by malice as initially vide the implicative enquiry report Annexure P-5 dated 10.7.2018 conducted by two members committee have opined that since the complaints against petitioner are prima facie established, it would be appropriate to transfer him elsewhere and, therefore, in this backdrop, it is submitted that despite the recommendation of transferring the petitioner elsewhere, the present impugned charge sheet has been issued with mala fide intention. 12. The aforesaid argument is heard to be rejected at the very outset as the enquiry which was conducted earlier was a mere fact finding enquiry not at the level of disciplinary authority but at the level of the institution. This inquiry or its recommendation do not deprive the disciplinary authority of its power to enquire into the misconduct alleged against the petitioner which the prerogative of the appointing/disciplinary authority under the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966. 13. In view of above, this Court declines interference in the matter and relegates the petitioner to raise all his legitimate grievances before the disciplinary authority which if raised shall be considered in accordance with law so that petitioner is accorded due and sufficient opportunity to defend himself in the pending inquiry.