Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Anoop Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 23 November, 2017
1
WP No. 7157/2015
(Dr. Anoop Gupta Vs State of M.P. & others)
23/11/2017
Shri Nirmal Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents/State.
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 21/07/2014 whereby punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect under Rule 10(4) of M.P. Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966(herein after referred to as Rules, 1966) has been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved vide order dated 27/05/2015 passed by respondent No.1 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner is posted at District Hospital, Morena (M.P.) on the post of Medical Specialist having charge of various other programmes in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The respondents have done monitoring in this regard for the period of 01/01/2013 to 16/03/2015. On 07/01/2014, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner wherein the allegations have been levelled that the petitioner was not present on duty time, was not giving sufficient time to OPD and not attending patients while he attended the patients at home resulting in deprivation of the medical facilities to the 2 WP No. 7157/2015 (Dr. Anoop Gupta Vs State of M.P. & others) patients at the hospital. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply wherein he explained his conduct and refuted the charges. After receiving the reply, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment vide order dated 21/07/2014 (Annexure P-2). Being aggrieved appeal was preferred. In appeal, the contention advanced was considered and appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27/05/2015 (Annexure P-
1).
The singular contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has taken a specific stand in the reply denying the charges and explaining his conduct, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to conduct a full fledged enquiry. In absence thereof, the allegations can not be held to be proved by the said authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180, Ajay Kumar Singh Vs State of M.P. & others, 2008 (2) MPLJ 541 and Bholeram Vs Union of India and others 2015 (1) MPLJ 626, wherein it has been held that if charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, then enquiry should be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement can not be dispensed with.
On the other hand, by filing return counsel for the respondents/State have contended that only a show 3 WP No. 7157/2015 (Dr. Anoop Gupta Vs State of M.P. & others) cause notice was issued and reply was filed by the petitioner. After considering the same, the impugned order imposing the punishment has been passed. He has tried to distinguish the judgment relied upon by the petitioner on the ground that in those cases charge sheet was issued to the petitioner but no regular departmental enquiry was conducted, therefore, the Apex Court had directed to conduct enquiry in that matter. In the present case, charge sheet was not issued to the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The core issue is whether in the aforesaid factual backdrop, it was necessary to conduct the enquiry. In the opinion of this Court, the point involved in this matter is no more res integra. The Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj (Supra) has opined as under
" 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 also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement can not be dispensed with" (Emphasis Supplied).
In view of the judgment in O.K. Bhardwaj (Supra), it is clear that when allegations are factual in nature and are denied by delinquent employee, enquiry needs to be conducted in order to fulfill 4 WP No. 7157/2015 (Dr. Anoop Gupta Vs State of M.P. & others) requirement of principle of natural justice. As noticed, in the present case, the petitioner specifically denied the allegation of the show cause notice and put forth his defence on the basis of factual assertions. It is not disputed that respondents have adopted the Rules of 1966. Under Rule, 16, the respondents may impose the punishment by way of summary enquiry. However, a bare perusal of Rule 16 also makes it clear that it contains an enabling provision of conducting a full fledged enquiry under Rule 14 of the said rules. Once, the allegations in the show cause notice are specifically refuted by filing a detailed reply on merits, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to conduct enquiry for the purpose of deciding the misconduct of the petitioner. Since factual allegations were denied and petitioner gave explanation on facts and merits, in the fitness of things, the disciplinary authority should have conducted an enquiry as per Rule 16 (1)(b) of CCA Rules of 1966. This would have been in consonance with the principle of natural justice. Apart from this, the discretion vested with the disciplinary authority to conduct an enquiry must be exercised in objective and judicious manner. The disciplinary authority in the present case has committed an error in not instituting the enquiry as per rules.
Resultantly, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 27/05/2015 and (Annexure P-2) dated 21/07/2014 can not be permitted to stand and the same are accordingly set-aside. However, liberty is 5 WP No. 7157/2015 (Dr. Anoop Gupta Vs State of M.P. & others) granted to the respondent to conduct the enquiry as per Rules 16 (1)(b) of the Rules, 1966. In case, if the respondents intends to enjoy the aforesaid liberty, said exercise be done within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, failing which the said liberty shall stand abated.
The Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Prachi* PRACHI MISHRA 2017.11.29 12:10:53 +05'30'