Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 579 (MP)

Rajendra Kumar Chandrol v. State of M. P.

2020-05-14

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2020
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the respondent No. 2/Commissioner, Tribal Development, Madhya Pradesh whereby the petitioner’s claim for his salary from the month of December 2008 till September 2012 has been rejected on the ground of “no work, no pay”. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is posted as accountant in the office of Block Education Officer, Nainpur, District Mandla, which has only one post of accountant. The case of the petitioner is that despite there being only one post for the accountant at Nainpur, the respondent No. 7 Shambhu Prasad Barmaiya was appointed on the said post on voluntary transfer without there being any vacant post of accountant at Nainpur. The said order was passed on 8.7.2005, although in the meantime vide order dated 1.3.2005, the Collector, Mandla attached the petitioner to M. P. Adivasi VittaAvam Vikas Nigam, Mandla till 28.2.2006 but his services were repatriated to the parent department vide order dated 6.2.2007 and although on 7.2.2007 the petitioner gave his joining back to his office of Block Education Officer, Nainpur, District Mandla but the respondents, with mala fide intention, did not give the charge of the said post to the petitioner and thus respondent No. 7 Shambhu Prasad Barmaiya continued to hold the said post. Aggrieved of the same, several representations were made by the petitioner to claim the aforesaid post which was earlier held by him but no orders were passed on the said representations. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that only in order to accommodate the respondent No. 7, he was transferred from Nainpur to Balaghat on 9.7.2007 and being aggrieved of the same, W. P. No. 9217/2007 was preferred by him in which, on 1.8.2007, a stay order was passed. The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court on 28.6.2008 taking note of the fact that since the stay order has already been passed by this Court around six months ago, hence the respondents were directed not to implement the impugned order; however, a liberty was granted to them to consider the matter afresh according to the administrative exigency and take fresh action, if necessary. After the aforesaid order was passed, again the petitioner was required to make several representation to the respondents to allow him to join on the post of accountant and, on 20.11.2008, the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Mandla passed an order directing the Block Education Officer, Nainpur to inform him as to why the petitioner is not being given the charge of the post. It was also directed in this letter to allocate to the petitioner the work as per his competence. Pursuant to which, vide his order dated 12.12.2008, the Block Education Officer, Nainpur granted the work of adjustment of scholarship to the petitioner which, according to the petitioner, was not as per the job profile of the petitioner who was an accountant and the adjustment of scholarship was not the work which was to be allotted by him. Being aggrieved, another W. P. No. 5347/2009 was filed by the petitioner and this Court, vide its order dated 21.5.2009, directed the Assistant Commissioner to see that his order dated 20.11.2008 is properly implemented. Since no action was taken by the respondents despite the said order passed by this Court, a Contempt Petition No. 1014/2009 was also filed by the petitioner against the respondents. Subsequently, on 6.5.2010, the impugned order was passed by the respondents holding that the petitioner cannot be paid the salary on the principle of “no work, no pay” from December 2008 till date, i.e., 6.5.2010. Again, various representations were filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order and on 19.11.2011 the Assistant Commissioner directed the Block Education Officer, Nainpur as to why the petitioner is not handed over the charge of accountant or a job commensurate to the post of accountant. But, as informed by the petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development vide his letter dated 24.12.2010, the Block Education Officer has paid no heed to the aforesaid communication dated 19.11.2010, hence action be taken against the Block Education Officer by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development. 4. Ms. Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner, during the aforesaid alleged “no work, no pay” period has regularly attended the office of the Block Education Officer without any break. The attention of this Court is also drawn to Annexure P-42 which contains the copies of attendance register from February 2007 to March 2010. 4. Ms. Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner, during the aforesaid alleged “no work, no pay” period has regularly attended the office of the Block Education Officer without any break. The attention of this Court is also drawn to Annexure P-42 which contains the copies of attendance register from February 2007 to March 2010. Counsel has also submitted that during this period, the petitioner was also required to attend the various election duties from time to time, the documents in respect of which have also been placed on record cumulative as Annexure P-41. It is further submitted that only to accommodate the respondent No. 7, the other respondents have ensured that the petitioner should not work on the post of accountant and with a view only to harass him, has handed over him the charge of adjustment of scholarship of students which was in complete disregard to the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the petition be allowed. 5. On the other hand, in response to the aforesaid pleadings and submissions, the respondents No. 1 to 4 have also filed a detailed reply as also additional submissions dated 22.7.2011. 6. Shri Bundela, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that no case for interference is made out as the petitioner has misled this Court by narrating only one side of the story and has deliberately suppressed about his own misconduct and several punishments which he has received in his service tenure. It is further submitted that vide order dated 29.3.2007, the petitioner was directed to perform the work of adjustment of scholarship but when the aforesaid order was served on the petitioner, he returned the same to the Block Education Officer with a note appended to it in his own handwriting that the charge and the duties which were being assigned to him were not commensurate to the duties of the post of accountant hence he be given the charge of accountant only. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued before this Court that the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner in writing a note on the order passed by the higher authority and expressing his displeasure in respect of the work which was allotted to him speaks volumes about the conduct of the petitioner with his superior officers. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued before this Court that the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner in writing a note on the order passed by the higher authority and expressing his displeasure in respect of the work which was allotted to him speaks volumes about the conduct of the petitioner with his superior officers. It is further submitted that so far as the transfer order dated 9.7.2007 whereby the petitioner was transferred from Nainpur to Balaghat is concerned, although it was passed on the ground of administrative exigency but in fact the petitioner was found guilty of not coming to office on time and not discharging his duties which were assigned to him, hence the aforesaid order was passed and the petitioner also showed extreme behavior by using all kinds of abusive language against the Block Education Officer, namely, C. L. Patel, who is also arrayed as respondent No. 6 in the present case. It is further submitted that not only this, the petitioner also resorted to all sorts of extreme behavior inclusive of abusing his juniors also and hence a complaint was also lodged at Police Station Nainpur, District Mandla on 19.6.2007. It is further submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development also wrote a letter dated 12.6.2007 to the Commissioner, Tribal Development stating that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a Government servant, hence he be transferred from District Mandla to some other place, in pursuance of which the transfer order dated 9.7.2007 was passed. It is further submitted that vide letter dated 8.10.2007 issued by the Block Education Officer, Nainpur, the petitioner was also informed to perform his duties as have been assigned to him failing which he shall not be paid the salary for the work for which he has not performed. Further, as a last warning, the petitioner was again directed to perform his work, failing which he would not be paid the salary. It is further submitted that on 12.12.2008, the Block Education Officer again wrote a letter to the petitioner to perform his duties as have been assigned to him, failing which he shall not be paid the salary from the month of December 2008, but the petitioner did not perform his duties. On 19.4.2009 he was again informed to perform his duties as have been assigned to him, failing which he shall not be paid the salary. On 19.4.2009 he was again informed to perform his duties as have been assigned to him, failing which he shall not be paid the salary. On 31.3.2009 he was informed that he should not be paid the salary if he does not perform the work which is assigned to him. 8. Leaned counsel for the respondents has also drawn the attention of this Court to the additional submissions which were submitted by the respondents on 22.7.2011 wherein documents relating to various disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioner regarding the misconduct committed by him on various earlier occasions wherein various penalties have also been imposed upon him, and the documents regarding eight such instances have also been placed on record. Thus, it is submitted that looking to the conduct of the petitioner that he has not carried out the work assigned to him in utter disregard to the orders passed by his superior officers, which conduct is also substantiated by his involvement in various disciplinary proceedings resulting in his punishment throughout his service career, no case for interference is made out and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. From the record it is found that it is not disputed that so far as the post of accountant at the office of Block Education Officer, Nainpur is concerned, only one such post was available. It is also not disputed that until 8.7.2005 the petitioner was working on the said post and vide order dated 8.7.2005 the respondent No. 7 was transferred to the said post at Nainpur. It is also true that the petitioner’s transfer order dated 9.7.2007 was stayed by this Court on 1.8.2007 in W. P. No. 9217/2007 and the said writ petition was also disposed of vide order dated 28.6.2008 by making the aforesaid order of stay as absolute and disposing of the petition with a direction to the respondents to pass a fresh order if necessary; but, in the considered opinion of this Court, no benefit can be claimed by the petitioner on the basis of the said order dated 28.6.2008 which has not been passed on merits. 11. 11. So far as the order dated 20.11.2008 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development is concerned, it is apparent from the aforesaid order that the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development has asked the Block Education Officer, Nainpur as to why the petitioner has not been given his charge on the post of accountant till date and further that if no such charge is given, then as per the petitioner’s eligibility, appropriate work be accorded to him. Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid order that the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development has not specifically directed the Block Education Officer, Nainpur to give petitioner the charge of accountant and in fact it is clearly stated in the aforesaid order that the petitioner be given the work according to his competence and eligibility but this order has not been challenged by the petitioner. 12. From the reply, it is also found that on 29.3.2007, an order was issued to the petitioner to carry out the work of adjustment of scholarship of the students; however, the petitioner has returned the aforesaid order with an endorsement in his handwriting that the work which is being allotted to him is not of accountant, hence he be given the charge of accountant. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid endorsement of the petitioner on the order issued by his superior officer reflects his temerity and is, in fact, a case of gross insubordination. This Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the allotment of the aforesaid work of adjustment of scholarship, then the proper course which was available to him was to challenge the aforesaid order before the appropriate forum; however, instead of doing so, he has taken upon himself to challenge the authority of his superior, which cannot be appreciated in any manner. Various other documents filed by the respondents along with their reply and the additional submissions also reveal that the petitioner is in the habit of indulging in defying the orders issued to him from time to time by his superior, for which various penalties have also been imposed on him. Various other documents filed by the respondents along with their reply and the additional submissions also reveal that the petitioner is in the habit of indulging in defying the orders issued to him from time to time by his superior, for which various penalties have also been imposed on him. In the reply it is also found that the respondents have admitted that the petitioner has participated in the election programme which was allotted to him by the competent officer; however, the respondents have denied that the petitioner has worked on his post and has carried out the work which was allotted to him. The respondents have also admitted that the petitioner had marked his appearance regularly, however, soon after giving his presence in the office, he chosen not to do the work which was allotted to him for which various letters have also been issued to him that he would not be paid the salary as he has not carried out the work which was allotted to him. Surprisingly, in rebuttal of the same, the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder and has not brought any document on record to demonstrate that he has also performed the work which was assigned to him, which, in the considered opinion of this Court amounts to his acquiescence to the aforesaid contentions and the documents filed therewith by the respondents. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for interference and the respondents’ action to withhold the salary to the petitioner for not performing the work which was allotted to him is hereby affirmed as no illegality has been committed by the respondents in passing the impugned order. The petitioner’s claim regarding the salary for the period December 2008 till 2012 is hereby rejected. However, it is found that since the respondents have admitted that the petitioner has worked and participated in the election programme as he was directed from time to time, in view of the same, the petitioner is held to be entitled to receive the salary for the aforesaid period only. 14. As a result, petition stands partly allowed. However, it is found that since the respondents have admitted that the petitioner has worked and participated in the election programme as he was directed from time to time, in view of the same, the petitioner is held to be entitled to receive the salary for the aforesaid period only. 14. As a result, petition stands partly allowed. Thus, it is further directed that if the petitioner submits a fresh representation before the competent authority/respondent claiming the salary relating to the period involving his participation in the election programme, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the said authority shall decide the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law within a further period of two months by a speaking and reasoned order, and if the petitioner is found eligible for his claims, he shall be given the salary for the said period for which he has worked in the election. No costs.