Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 101 (MP)

Roop Singh Bhadoria v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd.

2019-01-30

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI, S.K.SETH

body2019
ORDER 1. Heard on I.A No. 342/2019, which is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay filed by the appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the application. 3. After having heard rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that this writ appeal should not be thrown out of the window on technical ground and we are satisfied that sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay in filing this writ appeal. 4. Accordingly, we allow the application and condone the delay. 5. This intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 22.8.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 7856/2011. By the said order, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 6. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as under : The petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer and was attached to Datia (Rural) Distribution Centre under (O and M) Datia. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to him to explain circumstances as mentioned in the show cause notice dated 8.6.2010 (Annexure P-3). The gravamen of the charge was that the failure rate of the transformers under the distribution centre had gone up and the appellant had failed to submit any proposal or estimate for increase of load bearing capacity of the existing transformers or installation of additional transformers thereby he committed misconduct. It was proposed in the show cause notice to withhold one increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years by way of minor penalty. The petitioner submitted detailed reply denying the allegations made in the show cause notice. It is undisputed that on the reply submitted by the appellant, comments of the Assistant Engineer (O and M) Datia were obtained. The Executive Engineer (O and M) MPMKVV Company Limited, Datia endorsed the comments submitted by the Assistant Engineer. The comments of the Assistant Engineer is available on record as Annexure R-1. 7. After going through the comments of the Assistant Engineer (Annexure R-1), it is noticed that the Assistant Engineer denied the explanation of the appellant in reply to the show cause notice and as a top-spin added his own comments that the appellant did not remain in the head quarter as he was doing daily up and down from Gwalior to Datia. It was also mentioned that the appellant did not take interest in the affairs of the Company. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the comments of the Assistant Engineer, duly endorsed by the Executive Engineer, found the reply submitted by the appellant not satisfactory, therefore, imposed the minor penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year vide punishment order dated 23.4.2011. The appellant challenged this order in appeal without any avail and then by filing writ petition in this Court. 8. The learned Single Judge found no fault with the punishment order, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present intra court appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bharadwaj v. Union of India and ors., reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 and also unreported Division Bench decision of this Court dated 28/11/2017 passed in W.A. No. 369/2017 and dated 9.1.2019 passed in W. P. No. 3672/2014 and contended that when the delinquent officer denies the allegations made in the show cause notice, then it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to hold full fledged enquiry as contemplated under Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity, Rules of 1966). At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that there is no dispute that the appellant, while in service, was governed by the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the order of learned Single Judge and contended that no illegality was committed by the respondents while imposing the minor penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year after affording opportunity of hearing and explanation to the appellant. 11. We are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal deserves to be allowed on the ground that the allegation levelled against the appellant does not come within the meaning and ambit of “misconduct” as has been held in various judicial pronouncements. 12. 11. We are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal deserves to be allowed on the ground that the allegation levelled against the appellant does not come within the meaning and ambit of “misconduct” as has been held in various judicial pronouncements. 12. We have pointed out herein above that the gravamen of the charge was that the failure rate of the transformers under the distribution centre had gone up and the appellant had failed to submit any proposal or estimate for increase of load bearing capacity of the transformers or for installation of additional transformers thereby the appellant committed misconduct. After going through the punishment order we have found that the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the extra comments made by the Assistant Engineer that the appellant did not stay in the headquarter and used to do up and down daily from Gwalior to Datia. 13. It seems to us that the appellant incurred the displeasure of Assistant Engineer because former did not stay in the headquarter i.e. Datia and used to do daily up and down from Gwalior to Datia. This resulted in punishment. On this aspect of matter there is not a whisper in the show cause notice. 14. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 22.8.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 7856/2011, the punishment order dated 23.4.2011 passed by respondent No. 3 and the appellate order dated 5.8.2011 passed by the respondent No. 2 are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the arrears of amount of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount if any shall carry interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of order till its realization. 15. Writ appeal is disposed of. Ordered accordingly.