Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Union Of India & Ors. vs Hargovind Singh & Anr. on 6 February, 2017
Bench: Rajendra Menon, Anjuli Palo
---1---
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
Writ Petition No.10785/2004
Union of India and others ...... Petitioners
Versus
Har Govind Singh and another ......Respondents
****************************************************
Writ Petition No.10787/2004
Union of India and others ...... Petitioners
Versus
Har Govind Singh and another ......Respondents
****************************************************
CORAM
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon, Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo, J.
____________________________________________________
Whether approved for reporting ? No
Shri Shyam Krishna Mishra, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Counsel with Shri N. N.
Mishra, counsel for the respondents.
___________________________________________________
O R D E R (ORAL)
(6.2.2017) Per Rajendra Menon, Acting Chief Justice:
As common question of law and facts are involved in both these writ petitions and the respondent/employee is the same person in both the cases pertaining to disciplinary action taken against him and his regularization on a Group D post, we
---2---
deem it appropriate to dispose of both these cases by this common order.
02. In W.P. No.10787/2004 challenge by the Department is made to an order dated 24.6.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench Jabalpur in O. A. No.835/2001, whereby an order of punishment dated 13.4.2000 imposing punishment of recovery from salary on account of loss caused to the Government has been quashed by the Tribunal. In W.P. No.10785/2004 challenge is made to an order dated 24.6.2004 passed in O. A. No.461/2002 whereby the respondent/employee has been directed to be regularized and appointed in a Group D post based on the selection process held and his success in the selection process.
03. Facts of the case indicate that the respondent/Har Govind Singh was working in the postal department as an E.D. Mailman and while on duty on 26.10.1985 between 6 O' Clock in the evening to 6 O' Clock in the morning as a RMS Office Chowkidar it was found that he did not attend his duties properly, as a result theft had occurred in the office, resulting in loss of Rs.6,900/- to the Government. A departmental enquiry
---3---
was held under Rule 17 of the Extra Departmental Employees (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 into the charges alleged against the employee he was dismissed from service. The dismissal resulted in an application being filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal being O. a. No.744/1993 and vide order dated 13.8.1999, the Tribunal examined the entire enquiry proceedings and found that the applicant cannot be held responsible for theft, but as he was found sleeping on duty for certain period in the night the Tribunal held that for this some punishment can be imposed, but as he was not responsible for the theft and as the lock of the office was also not found broken, the matter was remanded back to the disciplinary Authority for reconsidering the question of imposition of punishment of dismissal/removal from service. On remand being made by the aforesaid order passed in O.A. No.744/1993, the competent Authority on 13.4.2000 imposed punishment of recovery of Rs.6,900/- in 23 equal installment of Rs.300/- on account of the fact that this is the compensation towards the loss caused to the Government, alongwith this the applicant was also directed to be reinstated in service and the period of his termination and
---4---
reinstatement was treated to be not spent on duty.
04. Be that as it may, this order dated 13.4.2000 was also challenged by the appellant before the Tribunal in O.A. No.835/2001 and by the impugned order dated 24.6.2004 the Tribunal found that loss caused to the Government for negligence on the part of a Government employee is a specific charge which should be framed, on every conduct and the allegation proved. The employee was to be given an opportunity to explain the charge, thereafter only recovery of loss caused due to negligence of the employee can be recovered by way of punishment. It was found that in the departmental proceedings held against the employee concerned namely, Har Govind Singh, no such allegation with regard to loss caused to the Government, because of his negligence, was charged and, therefore, finding that by violating the principle of natural justice and without granting him any opportunity of hearing to meet this charge, the recovery was ordered, accordingly, the recovery was quashed by the Tribunal. In doing so, we are of the considered view, the Tribunal has not committed any error. It is a fact that the petitioner was charged for having slept on duty and there was no
---5---
consequential charge that because of this dereliction of duty loss was caused to the department and for this as no show cause notice or enquiry was conducted that being so the Tribunal has not committed any error in interfering with this part of the punishment order. The Tribunal having applied its mind correctly and having interfered with the same as is indicated in Paragraph no.7 of the impugned order we find no reason to interfere into the same. Accordingly, we find no ground to interfere into the order passed and as a result, W.P. No.10787/2004 stands dismissed.
05. As far as, W.P. No.10785/2004 is concerned while the respondent/Har Govind Singh was in service, he participated in a selection process conducted for appointment to a Group D post. He was successful in the selection test, but he was not appointed in the Group D post as he was removed from service. However, after he was reinstated by virtue of the order passed on 13.4.2000 when he was not granted appointment in the regular Group D post based on the selection process held, he filed O.A. No.461/2002 and by the impugned order dated 24.6.2004, the Tribunal has held that the only reason for not appointing the
---6---
employee on a Group D post in spite of his selection was that he has been removed from service, but finding that his removal has been quashed by the Department itself, the Tribunal directed that the impediment namely removal of service having been set aside; and the employee having been reinstated in service based on the selection and his success in the selection process, he be appointed in the Group D regular post. In doing so again we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has not committed any error. The employee/Har Goving Singh, before the impugned departmental action for removal from service was taken against him, had participated in the selection process for appointment to the Group D post, he performed well in the selection and he was selected, but it was only because he was removed from service that he was not granted appointment to the said post. Once the removal from service has been modified by the Department and the punishment of recovery has been quashed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has not committed any error in directing for his regular appointment in the Group D selection post.
06. Accordingly, we find no case made out for interfering in W.P. No.10785/2004 also. We uphold the order passed by the
---7---
Tribunal and direct for granting a regular post in the Group D cadre to the respondent/employee - Har Govind Singh with effect from the date the order was passed by the Tribunal on 24.6.2004 with all consequential benefits.
07. With the aforesaid, both the petitions stand dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) (Smt. Anjuli Palo)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
Anchal