Madhya Pradesh High Court
Y.S. Sachan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 5 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)MPHT22
ORDER S.P. Khare, J.
1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 4-5-2000 (Annexure P-23) by which a minor penalty of withholding of one increment has been imposed upon the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was working as Land Acquisition and Land Valuation Officer in Jabalpur Development Authority. On 26-11-1993 a charge-sheet was served upon him. The charge was of negligence and dereliction of his duties inasmuch as the petitioner did not disclose that the land which was being given on lease to Agarwal Sabha was never acquired by the Jabalpur Development Authority and for this reason the lease-deed executed in favour of the lessee was subsequently required to be cancelled. The act or omission of the petitioner was said to be contrary to Rule 3 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. A departmental enquiry on this charge was held. The enquiry officer by his report (Annexure P-18) held the petitioner guilty of this misconduct. The enquiry officer found that the file relating to the issue of the advertisement was handled by the petitioner as Land Acquisition and Valuation Officer and he had issued the order dated 22-7-1991 in that file and at that time it was his duty to put on record that this land has never been acquired by the J.D.A. A show-cause notice alongwith a copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner on 12-5-1998 and he submitted his representation. Though the show-cause notice proposed the penalty of removal from service a very lenient view was taken and a minor penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. It was thus a flea-bite punishment and even that has been challenged by the petitioner through this writ petition. The petitioner was under suspension from 27-10-1993 to 7-8-1997 and as per impugned order he is to be paid subsistence allowance only for that period.
3. The petitioner's case is that the penalty has been imposed by the Chief Executive Officer and he had no authority to do so as the petitioner was a Class-II Officer. It is submitted that the charge levelled against him was not proved. The petitioner has claimed full salary for the suspension period.
4. The respondents' case is that the petitioner was a Class-II employee and the Chief Executive Officer was his disciplinary authority. The charge was fully proved and the finding of the enquiry officer which has been arrived at on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence can not be assailed. The petitioner can not claim full salary for the suspension period.
5. The learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard. The enquiry report and the impugned order have been perused by this Court. The finding of the enquiry officer is based on evidence and it is not perverse. It is not open to interference by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held by the Supreme Court in a number of cases including the latest decision in Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625.
6. The petitioner has not produced any order showing his actual appointment as Class-II Officer upto the date of the service of charge-sheet on him. Therefore, he would be deemed to be a Class-III employee when the disciplinary action was initiated against him. The Chief Executive Officer is undisputably the disciplinary authority for this class of employees. There is no infirmity in the order having been passed by the C.E.O.
7. The minor penalty imposed upon the petitioner is unassailable. It is not known why the C.E.O. took such a lenient view.
8. So far as the salary for the period of suspension is concerned, the petitioner should be paid full salary. A minor penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner. The punishment is so light and therefore the petitioner could not be saddled with the heavier penalty of depriving him the salary for the suspension period. This part of the impugned order is not a speaking order. No reasons have been assigned for depriving the petitioner of his salary for the suspension period. The Government of India has issued a circular dated 3-12-1985 stating there in that where departmental proceedings against a suspended employee for the imposition of a major penalty finally end with the imposition of a minor penalty, the suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified in terms of F.R. 54-B and the employee concerned should, therefore, be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by passing a suitable order under F.R. 54-B. The guideline issued by the Central Government for its employees is just and reasonable and it should be followed by the State Government and its instrumentality. The Jabalpur Development Authority is also such instrumentality and it will also be governed by such interpretation of Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules.
9. The petition is partly allowed. It is dismissed against that part of the impugned order by which the penalty of withholding of one increment has been imposed upon the petitioner. The respondents are directed to pay full salary of the petitioner for the suspension period within two months.