Virendra Singh Yadav vs C.M.D.Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kchetra ... on 10 December, 2014

[Cites 3, Cited by 6]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Virendra Singh Yadav vs C.M.D.Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kchetra ... on 10 December, 2014

1 WP. No.6/2011

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR

SB: Justice Sujoy Paul

Writ Petition No.6/2011

Virendra Singh Yadav
Vs.
C.M.D., M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. & Ors.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sunil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ravi Jain, Advocate for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Petition No.7565/2010

Ranveer Singh Rajput
Vs.
C.M.D., M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. & Ors.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sunil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Jain, Advocate for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Writ Petition No.7566/2010

M.C. Gupta
Vs.
C.M.D., M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. Ors.

Writ Petition No.7567/2010

Sauratan Sing Tomar
Vs.
C.M.D., M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. Ors.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sunil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri VivekJain, Advocate for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 WP. No.6/2011

Writ Petition No.7570/2010

Raj Narayan Sharma
Vs.
C.M.D., M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. Ors.

Writ Petition No.3/2011

Vijay Ahuja
Vs.
C.M.D., M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. Ors.

Writ Petition No.4/2011

Ravindra Singh Jain
Vs.
C.M.D., M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. Ors.

Writ Petition No.5/2011

R.K. Litoriya
Vs.
C.M.D., M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. Ors.

Writ Petition No.40/2011

Basant Kumar Pandey
Vs.
C.M.D., M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. Ors.
3 WP. No.6/2011

Writ Petition No.154/2011

Harish Mehta
Vs.
C.M.D., M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. Ors.

Writ Petition No.155/2011

P.S. Kushwah
Vs.
C.M.D., M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. Ors.

Writ Petition No.181/2011

D.N.S. Rathore
Vs.
C.M.D., M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. Ors.

Writ Petition No.182/2011

Ramavtar Rajak
Vs.
C.M.D., M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. Ors.

ORDER

( 10 / 12 / 2014) 4 WP. No.6/2011 This petition is analogously heard with similar matters. The facts are taken from WP. 6/2011.

2. The petitioner, a Junior Engineer (Trainee), was served with a charge sheet. After enquiry, he was inflicted with punishment. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the said punishment, preferred an appeal. At this stage, petitioner filed a WP No. 6324/2009 which was decided with similar matters on 18.01.2010 (Annexure P/4). This Court passed the following directions :-

(a) the appellate authority shall decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(b) It is needless to mention that the appellate authority shall pass a detailed speaking order and shall also consider each and very ground raised by the petitioners in the present writ petitions as well as in other identical matters.

(c) during pendency of the appeal and till a final order is passed in the appeals, the orders of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority shall be kept in abeyance.

(d) In case any of the petitioners have not preferred any appeal against the order of punishment, they are granted fifteen days time from today to prefer an appeal against the punishment order and in case such an appeal is filed, the same shall be considered and decided in the same manner and method as directed hereinabove;

(e) as this Court has kept in abeyance the punishment orders passed in the present Writ petitions, the amount, if any recovered from each and every petitioner shall be refunded within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the same shall be subject to final outcome of the appeals preferred by the petitioners.

(f) the appellate authority shall be free to decide each and every individual case keeping in view the facts of each individual case without being influenced by any observations made by this Court. The observations made by this Court in the present order shall not come in the way of the appellate authority in passing orders individually in each cases.

With the aforesaid, all the writ petitions stand disposed of.

5 WP. No.6/2011

No order as to cost.

(Emphasis supplied)

3. In view of said directions of this Court, the respondents were required to decide the appeal. In turn, by the impugned order Annexure P/2 dated 10.12.2010 the respondents decided the appeal. In view of appellate order , the punishment was modified / reduced by order dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure P/1).

4. Criticizing this order, Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that appellate authority has not considered the grounds raised in the appeal and passed the order in a mechanical manner.

5. Prayer is opposed by Shri Ravi Jain and Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the employer.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Before dealing with the rival contentions, I deem it proper to reproduce Rule 27 of M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules,1966 which is admittedly applicable in the respondent organization. It reads as under :-

"27. Consideration of appeal- [1] In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of rule 9 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly.

[2] In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 10 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rule, the appellate authority shall consider-

(a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-

compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice;

(b) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and

(i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty; or

(ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other 6 WP. No.6/2011 authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case."

8. As per said Rule, it is clear that appellate authority is under a statutory obligation to decide the appeal by examining various grounds mentioned in the appeal memo. In the present case, petitioner has mentioned certain facts and grounds in his appeal memo. There is no iota of discussion and analysis on the said facts and grounds in the appellate order. Appellate authority has merely recorded that the defense of the petitioner was sympathetically considered on the basis of documents / record and appeal was rejected.

9. In the opinion of this Court, the said procedure adopted by the appellate authority runs contrary to the CCA Rules, earlier order of this court and principle of natural justice. Appellate authority being a quasi judicial authority was obliged to assign reasons in the event petitioner's defense was not found trustworthy by him. Reasons are held to be heartbeat of conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustained judicial scrutiny (See: Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496). The Apex Court way back in (1986) 3 SCC 103 opined that appellate authority is required to apply its mind while deciding the appeal. The same view is taken by this Court in (2012) 5 SCC 242 (Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). In a recent judgment reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 (Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani) the Apex Court again emphasized the need of application of mind by the statutory appellate authority.

10. As analyzed above, the impugned order (Annexure P/2) suffers from aforesaid legal infirmity. Resultantly, the said order and the punishment order dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure P/1) are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within three months from the date of production of copy of this order.

11. Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.

12. Registry is directed to keep true copy of this order in all the connected petitions.


                                                        (SUJOY PAUL)
Sarathe/-                                                  Judge

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Virendra Singh Yadav vs C.M.D.Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kchetra ... on 10 December, 2014