ORDER : Mr. Arun Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Sangeeta Pachouri, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard. 3. This appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchch Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 20-9-2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 841/2015(S). 4. The issue is as to whether it will be within the competence of the Disciplinary Authority to have issued charge-sheet for major penalty under Rule 14 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 (for brevity “Rules 1966”) during pendency of a minor penalty charge-sheet/notice under Rule 16 of the Rules 1966 for the same charges. 5. Relevant facts giving rise to the issue briefly are that, the appellant (since retired) while posted as City Superintendent Mandsaur was given show cause notice on 3-1-2012 purportedly under Rule 16 of the Rules 1966 as to why he be not punished with stoppage of increment for the said misconduct. The charges were: ^^1- vkids }kjk exZ Ø-15@10 esa fuofookfgrk ds exZ dh tkap dh xbZ gS] fdarq dsl Mk;jh ds ipkZ Ø- 7@27-3-10 esa ,Q,l,y ls tkap djkus dk vkSfpR; u gksuk ys[k dj bl exZ dks uLrhc) djk;k x;k gSA 2- blh exZ esa vkosnd vksadkjyky }kjk mldh iq=h dh e`R;q ds laca/k esa ngst izrkM+uk ds xaHkhj vkjksi yxk;s gS rFkkfi rRdky dh vkijkf/kd izdj.k iathc) djus dh dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZa 3- vkosnd dh f’kdk;r tkap ij ;g ik;k x;k gS fd e`frdk o"kkZ dks mlds ifr lhrkjke mQZ lRrw rFkk lkl xV~VwckbZ jkoreh.kk fuoklh dksyok dks ngst gsrq izrkfM+r fd;k ftlls o"kkZ us tgjhyk inkFkZ [kkdj vkRegR;k dh gSA 4- bl exZ esa vkids }kjk ?kVukLFky dk fujh{k.k ugh fd;k uD'kk ekSdk ugh cuk;k] tgjhyh oLrq [kkus ds i'pkr mYVh gksus ds izek.k ,df=r ugha fd;s ih,e fjiksVZ esa e`R;q dk dkj.k Li"V ugha gksus ij Hkh e`frdk dk foljk ,Q,l,y ijh{k.k gsrq ugh Hkstk x;kA exZ tkap ds nkSjku e`frdk ds firk vkasdkjyky eh.kk o dkdk ekaxhyky eh.kk ds dgs vuqlkj dFku ugha fy[kus ds vkjksi Hkh vkids fo:) lkfcr ik;s x;s gSA^^ 6. The denial of said charges by the appellant vide reply dated 26-5-2012 resulted in issuance of order of punishment on 12-8-2013, inflicting penalty of stoppage of two increments without commutative effect. 7. The denial of said charges by the appellant vide reply dated 26-5-2012 resulted in issuance of order of punishment on 12-8-2013, inflicting penalty of stoppage of two increments without commutative effect. 7. The order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 7608/2013. The petition was allowed on 17-12-2013 in the following terms: “Resultantly, the impugned order dated 12-8-2013 is set aside. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Liberty is reserved for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and has decided matter by examining the decision making process. No costs.” 8. The setting aside of punishment order led the competent Authority to pass an order on 27-8-2014 of recalling the order dated 12-8-2013. The order dated 27-8-2014 is extracted for ready reference: e/; izns'k 'kklu x`g foHkkx ea=ky;] oYyHk Hkou] Hkksiky vkns'k Hkksiky] fnukad 27--8-2014 Øekad % ,Q 1¼ch½72@2012@ch&4@nks% ;kfpdk Ø-7608@2013 ¼,l½ Jh ih-,l= lksyadh] mi iqfyl v/kh{kd djsjk ftyk f'koiqjh e-iz- fo:) e-iz- 'kklu ,oa vU; esa eku- mPPk U;k;ky; Xokfy;j csp }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fn- 17-12-2013 ds ikyu esa foHkkxh; lela[;d vkns'k fn- 12&8&2013 ftlds }kjk Jh ih-,l- lksyadh] RkRdky uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd] eanlkSj orZeku esa mi iqfyl v/kh{kd] djsjk ftyk f'koiqjh dh nks osruo`f}a;k valap;h izHkko ls jksdh xbZ gS] dks jkT; 'kklu ,rn }kjk rRdky izHkko ls fujLr djrk Gsa e/; izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls RkFkk vkns'kkuqlkj ¼deyk mik/;k;½ voj lfpo e/; izns'k 'kklu] x`g foHkkx 9. Evidently, the minor penalty charge-sheet/notice which was issued on 3-1-2012 was allowed to remain intact. 10. In these factual background the issue as referred to arise for consideration. 11. Learned Single Judge dwelt upon the issue in the following terms: “6.3 The last ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State cannot issue fresh charge-sheet without recalling the earlier one vide P/3. 6.3.1 Admittedly, the earlier show cause notice for minor penalty has not been recalled. 11. Learned Single Judge dwelt upon the issue in the following terms: “6.3 The last ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State cannot issue fresh charge-sheet without recalling the earlier one vide P/3. 6.3.1 Admittedly, the earlier show cause notice for minor penalty has not been recalled. In earlier round of litigation in W.P. No. 7608/2013, this Court holding the minor punishment order to be non-speaking and passed without conducting enquiry under Rule 14 of the 1966 Rules quashed the same, extending liberty to the employer to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law which means that the employer was at liberty to conduct enquiry and pass speaking order either of punishment or exoneration as the case may be depending upon the evidence that comes on record. Therefore, the respondent after taking sanction from the competent authority issued impugned charge-sheet on 6-1-2015 alleging the same charges and proposing to conduct full scale enquiry under Rule 14 of 1966 Rules. 6.3.2 The impugned charge sheet now issued impliedly renders the earlier minor penalty show cause notice dated 3-1-2012 vide P/3 inconsequential and ineffective and therefore even if the respondents do not expressly recalled the same it does not have any legal sanctity in the changed circumstances of judicial intervention and the impugned charge-sheet having been issued. 6.3.3 From the above, it is evident that the impugned charge sheet P/1 has been issued to afford opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself by conducting full scale enquiry which cannot be found fault with especially in view of the liberty granted to the employer in the first round of litigation in W.P. No. 7608/13.” 12. Evidently, the order passed in Writ Petition No. 7608/2013 has been construed to be a liberty to the department to issue fresh charge-sheet under Rule 14 of 1966 Rules for major penalty. 13. Reverting back to the order passed in W.P. No. 7608/2013 we observe that learned Single Judge was dwelling on the scope of Rule 16 of 1966 Rules which envisages: “16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties. 13. Reverting back to the order passed in W.P. No. 7608/2013 we observe that learned Single Judge was dwelling on the scope of Rule 16 of 1966 Rules which envisages: “16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties. — (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 and Rule 11 shall be made except after— (a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; (b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary; (c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration: (d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; (e) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary.” 14. Thus contemplating the procedure to be adhered to as followed when a charge-sheet under Rule 14 of 1966 is issued. This aspect would be evident from the findings in paragraph 6, 9, 10 and 11 of the decision in W.P. No. 7608/2013, wherein it is observed: “6. The Pivotal question is whether the aforesaid course adopted by the respondents is in accordance with law. Rule 16 of M.P. Civil Services CCA Rules, 1966 also makes it obligatory that the record of disciplinary proceedings must include the orders on the case together with reasons therefor. This is settled in law that “conclusion” must be based on reasons. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondents have considered the allegations against the petitioner, report of various departmental authorities and then opined that the petitioner's representation is not satisfactory. 9. Matter may be examined from yet another angle. Although minor penalty proceedings treated as summary proceedings yet if charges are factual in nature and reply is also based on factual averments, the Apex Court opined that enquiry must be conducted in the said eventuality. 9. Matter may be examined from yet another angle. Although minor penalty proceedings treated as summary proceedings yet if charges are factual in nature and reply is also based on factual averments, the Apex Court opined that enquiry must be conducted in the said eventuality. In (2001) 9 SCC 180 , O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India the Apex Court opined as under:— “3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that “withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect” is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. In (2005) 12 SCC 256 , Raj Kumar Mehrotra v. State of Bihar the Apex Court opined as under:— “…………There is nothing in the impugned order which shows that any of the several issued raised by the appellant in his answer to the show cause notice were in fact considered. No reason has been given by the respondent authority for holding that the charges were proved except for the ipse dixit of the disciplinary authority. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained and must be and is set aside.” 11. On the basis of aforesaid judgments, in my opinion, respondents have erred in inflicting the punishment without conducting any enquiry. For the reason also, impugned order needs to be set aside.” 15. Thus the charge-sheet issued under Rule 16 of 1966 Rules was not interfered with in the W.P. No. 7608/2013. The liberty was reserved to conduct the enquiry under same charge-sheet and not by issuing fresh major penalty charge-sheet under Rule 14 of 1966 Rules. The situation which thus emerges is that the appellant for the same charges have charge-sheets, one under Rule 16 and the another under Rule 14 of 1966 Rules. 16. The liberty was reserved to conduct the enquiry under same charge-sheet and not by issuing fresh major penalty charge-sheet under Rule 14 of 1966 Rules. The situation which thus emerges is that the appellant for the same charges have charge-sheets, one under Rule 16 and the another under Rule 14 of 1966 Rules. 16. In view whereof, the conclusion arrived at vide paragraphs 6.3 to 6.3.3 of the impugned judgment cannot be given the stamp of approval and are set aside to the extent it justify issuance of second charge-sheet under Rule 14 of 1966 Rules. 17. Consequently, the second charge-sheet dated 6-1-2015 being without any lawful authority is quashed. The respondents would be at liberty to take action as per the liberty granted in the Writ Petition No. 7608/2013. 18. The appeal is disposed of finally in above terms. No costs. Order accordingly.