Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkishore Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 April, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 5 th OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 11144 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
RAMKISHORE SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI RAMDEO
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
MANAGER ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI
MARYADIT BHALMUDI TEH. KOTMA DIST. ANUPPUR
MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE
SECRETARY DEPT. OF FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. D I R E C T O R FARMER WELFARE AND
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT DISTT.BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE COLLECTOR A N U P P U R DISTT.ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DEPUTY REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
DISTT.ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE ADMINISTRATOR / COOPERATIVE
IN S PECTOR POSTED AT ADIM JATI SEWA
SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT BHALMUDI TAHSIL
KOTMA DISTT.ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. BRANCH MANAGER DISTRICT CENTRAL
COOPERATIVE BANK BRANCH KOTMA
Signature Not Verified
DISTT.ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SAN
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.04.06 19:19:43 IST
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
2
RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 22/03/2021 vide which the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Administrator, Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Bhalmudi.
Petitioner is also challenging the order dated 29/04/2021 issued by the Administrator seeking reply to the allegations made in the notice.
Petitioner's contention is that chargesheet is antedated. It was issued on 9/05/2021 showing date of 29/04/2021 and in support of this contention, Shri Shukla submits that dispatch number is mentioned as kramank/saakh/2021/Q which was received by the petitioner on 31/05/2021 whereas period of 45 days was over on 5/05/2021.
Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla has placed reliance on two orders of this court dated 1st February, 2023 and 17 th February, 2023 respectively passed in W.P. Nos. 2106/2023 and 39/2023 to demonstrate that under similar facts and circumstances, this court had shown indulgence and, therefore, petitioner is also entitled to be given indulgence in the matter of suspension and issuance of chargesheet by quashing the same.
Shri Manas Mani Verma submits that facts of that case are different. In those cases, the Additional Collector, Chhatarpur had directed the Administrator of Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Ishanagar, Development Block Chhatarpur to place those petitioners under suspension and inform them Signature Not Verified SAN immediately whereas in the present case, vide order dated 22/03/2021 available Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2023.04.06 19:19:43 IST at page 39 of the writ petition, Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative Society, 3 District Anooppur has only granted permission to the Administrator of the Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Maryadit to take action against the petitioner for defalcation of money of 33 farmers in accordance with the Employees Service Rules.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that the Deputy Commissioner Co-operatives, District Anooppur never directed the Administrator of the society to place the petitioner under suspension. He only narrated the fact that F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Ramnagar against the petitioner in the matter of defalcation of not depositing a sum of Rs. 8,35,409.38/- in the accounts of 33 farmers and then granted permission to the Administrator to act in accordance with the service rules.
Thus, direction of the Deputy Commissioner to act in accordance with the service rules cannot be said to be a direction to act in a particular manner resulting in suspension of the petitioner. It is also evident from Annexure P-10 that as per the service rules namely Madhya Pradesh/Chhatisgarh Ke Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Karmchari Sewa (Niyojan, Nibandhan tatha Unki Karyasthiti) Niyam, 1982, it was mandatory for the disciplinary authority to have issued a chargesheet within a period of 45 days/90 days as the case may be.
The matter is of factual nature as to whether the chargesheet was issued on 29/04/2021 or is antedated, this issue can be raised by the petitioner in the departmental enquiry in which he will be in a position to demonstrate that the chargesheet was antedated by leading cogent evidence. For the present, since the date mentioned in the chargesheet is 29/04/2021, it will be deemed to have Signature Not Verified SAN been issued on the date which is mentioned in the order Annexure P-10.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2023.04.06 19:19:43 ISTTherefore, the second argument is that chargesheet is antedated cannot 4 be dealt with only on the basis of submissions made by the petitioner without leading cogent evidence in this regard. It can be dealt with by filing relevant documents in support of the contention of the petitioner.
It is well settled principle of law as laid down by the Apex Court in Government of Tamil Nadu versus K.N.Ramamurthy AIR 1997 SC 3571 that a Charge Sheet can be assailed and subjected to the judicial review and is liable to be declared as invalid on any one of the following grounds:- (1) If it is not in conformity with law. (2) If it discloses the bias or prejudgment of the guilt of the charged employee. (3) There is non-application of mind in issuing the Charge Sheet. (4) If it does not disclose any misconduct. (5) If it is vague. (6) If it is based on stale allegation. (7) If it is issued malafide.
There is a difference in issuance of chargesheet and service of chargesheet. Since, chargesheet was issued in time and there is no material on record to show that it is ante dated, prima facie this aspect deserves to be rejected and is rejected.
The Charge Sheet (Annexure P/10) dated 29.04.2021 issued by the Administrator, Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Bhalmudi is in conformity with the provisions of law. It has been issued within the prescribed time of issuance of the order of suspension. It does not disclose any bias or prejudgment of guilt and it also does not suffer from non-application of mind and, therefore, none of the grounds to assail the Charge Sheet (Annexure P/10) dated 29.04.2021 are available calling for indulgence in this writ petition.
Taking these facts into consideration that order of the Administrator is in Signature Not Verified SAN accordance with the service rules and there was no direction by the Deputy Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Commissioner to place the petitioner under suspension and analyzing the cases Date: 2023.04.06 19:19:43 IST 5 of Santosh Kumar Pateriya and Santosh Kumar Pandey referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner where Additional Collector has issued specific directions to place those petitioners under suspension, I am of the view that cases referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on their own facts and will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Since, there is prima facie material to show defalcation of certain amounts due to 33 farmers, the order of suspension cannot be interfered with because it is passed by the competent authority and there is no allegation of malafide against the said competent authority.
Therefore, this court refuses to interfere in the order of suspension as well as in the matter of issuance of chargesheet, however, grants liberty to the petitioner that he will be free to prove this aspect of chargesheet being antedated by leading cogent evidence during the course of departmental enquiry.
In above terms, the petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2023.04.06 19:19:43 IST