Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1032 (MP)

D. P. Tiwari v. State of M. P.

2022-08-22

VISHAL DHAGAT

body2022
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders dated 20.2.2019 and 6.2.2021. 2. Penalty of reduction of pay scale to minimum has been imposed upon petitioner vide order dated 20.2.2019. Petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 6.2.2021. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is working as Sub-engineer in Office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dindori (MP). On 25.7.2017, charge sheet was issued to petitioner by one Rajiv Kumar Suklikar who signed as Engineer-in-Chief, however, Rajiv Suklikar was holding substantive post of Chief Engineer which is evident from his order of retirement dated 26.12.2019. Petitioner is holding the post of Sub-engineer which is Class-II post. Employee who was getting pay scale of Rs. 2000-2900/-, he is designated as Class-II employee as per circular dated 29.5.1998 As per circular dated 12.9.1983 head of department can impose minor penalty on Class-II employees. Petitioner is Class-II employee, therefore, only Engineer-in-Chief has power to impose minor penalty upon him. Rajiv Suklikar has imposed a major penalty on petitioner vide order dated 20.2.2019. In view of same, impugned orders dated 20.2.2019 and 6.2.2021 be quashed. 4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that petitioner has filed WP No.1736/2020 against the order passed in departmental enquiry. Said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.1.2020. Another writ petition challenging same order is not maintainable. It is further submitted that Rajiv Suklikar was delegated administrative and financial power of the post of Engineerin-Chief, Water Resources Department by Governor, therefore, he was having jurisdiction to impose minor penalty on petitioner. 5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents. 6. In earlier petition i.e. WP No.1736/2020 challenge was made by petitioner to order dated 20.2.2019. Thereafter, appeal preferred by petitioner has also been decided which is under challenge in this writ petition. Order passed in appeal gives a fresh fresh cause of action to petitioner, therefore, writ petition filed by petitioner is not barred. 7. On going through the order dated 2.1.2017, it is found that respondent who was holding substantive post of Chief Engineer was given charge of Engineer-in-Chief by State Government till further orders. Petitioner was also given administrative and financial powers till he remains on the post of Engineer-in-Chief. 7. On going through the order dated 2.1.2017, it is found that respondent who was holding substantive post of Chief Engineer was given charge of Engineer-in-Chief by State Government till further orders. Petitioner was also given administrative and financial powers till he remains on the post of Engineer-in-Chief. It is further submitted that as per order dated 1.4.1983 of Deputy Secretary, Irrigation Department, Engineer-in-Chief has power and jurisdiction to impose minor penalty. 8. As per Rule 10 of MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, minor penalty included:- "10. Penalties:- The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely :- Minor penalties:- (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding of his promotion; (iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of order; (iv) withholding of increments of pay or stagnation allowance." 9. As per aforesaid rules, censure, withholding of promotion, recovery from pay, withholding of increments of pay or stagnation allowances include minor penalty. Vide order dated 20.2.2019, petitioner was imposed with major penalty under Rule 10 (6) as he was reduced to lower stage to minimum of pay scale. As per Annexure-R/2 dated 1.4.1983, Engineer-in-Chief can only impose minor penalty on Class-II employee, therefore, Engineer-in-Chief has no power to impose major penalty on petitioner. Further, respondent No.2 was not holding substantive post of Engineer-in-Chief and, therefore, he does not have jurisdiction to impose penalty on petitioner. 10. Considering the same, impugned order dated 6.2.2021 is quashed and writ petition filed by petitioner, is allowed. 11. Respondents No.1 and 2 are at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law.