Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Singh Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42860
1 WP-24349-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 24349 of 2018
VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Ram Tamrakar - Senior Advocate with Shri Ankit Chopra
- Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Vijay Shukla - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against order dated 18.06.2018 (Annexure P/2) passed by Collector Sidhi District Sidhi whereby punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect was awarded to the petitioner in a departmental proceedings initiated against him. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by Commissioner Rewa Division Rewa whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case, in substance, are that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Patwari in the respondent-department and during his service, on 27.12.2017, he was placed under suspension on the basis of some allegations which was alleged by the complainant in Jansunwai before the Collector Sidhi regarding wrong mutation of revenue records.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 09-09-2025 19:09:32NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42860 2 WP-24349-2018 Accordingly, a notice was issued to the petitioner and he submitted his reply. However, without considering the reply, the respondent No.3 issued charge sheet and directed for initiation of a departmental enquiry. It is submitted that when no action was taken by the authorities, the petitioner submitted his joining in terms of Annexure P/7. However, after the inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted the report and the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. As a result whereof, the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 27.12.2017. Thereafter, a final show cause notice was issued by the Collector including the inquiry report seeking his reply. He submitted his reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the order of punishment was passed on 18.06.2018 withholding two increments with cumulative effect and the period of suspension has been counted in service.
Being aggrieved with the punishment order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal which came to be rejected vide order dated 25.09.2018. Therefore, this petition.
3. It is argued that after conclusion of the inquiry and preparation of the inquiry report in terms of Annexure P/8, the same was forwarded to the disciplinary authority. The inquiry officer has found the charges to be proved against the petitioner and proposed that for the mistake which petitioner has committed he was already suspended from service since 27.12.2017 and has found that ample punishment has been provided to him; therefore, he is not recommended for any further punishment. Thereafter, the notice was issued to the petitioner seeking his reply. However, the disciplinary authority without recording its disagreement with the inquiry report and the proposed Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 09-09-2025 19:09:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42860 3 WP-24349-2018 punishment, has imposed the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. The said order is affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner Rewa Division Rewa.
4. The challenge to the punishment order is made on the ground that the disciplinary authority when not satisfied with the report submitted by the inquiry officer and the proposed punishment should have recorded its reasons for dissatisfaction with the report submitted by the inquiry officer and thereafter should have passed the punishment order. No such reasons were assigned pointing out dissatisfaction either to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner or in the order passed by the disciplinary authority on 18.06.2018. Even the appellate authority has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner, the appellate authority also has affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vikram Singh Rana vs Principal Secretary, reported in 2013 (2) MPLJ 232, State of M.P. vs Vishnu Prasad Maran, reported in 2021 (3) MPLJ 90 and Balendra Singh vs State of MP reported in 2023 SCC Online 2769. Under these circumstances, he has prayed for interference in the impugned order.
6. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents/State has vehemently opposed the contention stating that the petitioner was granted opportunity of hearing at every stage of the proceedings and only after full-fledged enquiry, the impugned punishment order was passed. The show cause notice was Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 09-09-2025 19:09:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42860 4 WP-24349-2018 issued to the petitioner along with inquiry report. The reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority and consequently the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. There was no procedural flaw in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner. The appellate authority did not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority and therefore, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. While placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 and Union of India and others vs Dalbir Singh reported in (2021) 11 SCC 321, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The sole question which arises for consideration before this Court that whether the punishment order can be interfered after conducting a detailed departmental enquiry into the matter and whether the the disciplinary authority without recording its disagreement with the inquiry report and the proposed punishment, can impose the major punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect ?
9. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned punishment has not been passed after following the due procedure as provided under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. If the disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the inquiry report, then reasons for its dissatisfaction should be recorded and after recording the reasons, opportunity of hearing should be given and thereafter Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 09-09-2025 19:09:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42860 5 WP-24349-2018 the order should be passed but the disciplinary authority has not shown its dissatisfaction with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and the proposed punishment by the inquiry officer, the order has been modified. Further, the appellate authority has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable as the same does not reflect consideration/reasons assigned by the disciplinary authority showing its disagreement with the report submitted by the inquiry officer.
10. The law to the aforesaid proposition is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd. v. P.K. Khanna, (2005) 7 SCC 597 wherein it has been held as under :
9. Apart from misreading the enquiry officer's report, the High Court also misapplied the law. The various decisions referred to in the impugned judgment make it clear that the disciplinary authority is required to give reasons only when the disciplinary authority does not agree with finding of the enquiry officer. In this case the disciplinary authority had concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer wholly.
In Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana [1987 Supp SCC 582] the disciplinary authority after quoting the content of the charge-sheet, the deposition of witnesses as recorded by the enquiry officer, the finding of the enquiry officer and the explanation submitted by the employee passed an order which, in all material respects, is similar to the order passed by the disciplinary authority in this case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent sought to draw a distinction on the basis that the disciplinary authority had, in Ram Kumar case [1987 Supp SCC 582] itself quoted the details of the material. The mere quoting of what transpired would not amount to the giving of any reasons. The reasons were in the penultimate paragraph which we have said virtually used the same language as the impugned order in the present case. This Court dismissed the challenge to the order of punishment in the following words:
"8. In view of the contents of the impugned order, it is difficult to say that the punishing authority had not applied his mind to the case before terminating the services of the appellant. The punishing authority has placed reliance upon the report of the enquiry officer which means that he has not only agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, but also has accepted the reasons given by him for the findings. In our opinion, when the punishing authority agrees with the findings of the enquiry officer and accepts the reasons given by him in support of such findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to again discuss evidence and come to the same findings as that of the enquiry officer and give the same reasons for the findings. We are unable to accept the contention made on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 09-09-2025 19:09:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42860 6 WP-24349-2018 termination is vitiated as it is a non-speaking order and does not contain any reason. When by the impugned order the punishing authority has accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and the reasons given by him, the question of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice does not arise. It is also incorrect to say that the impugned order is not a speaking order."
We respectfully adopt the view. The position is further clarified by Rule 33 of the Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It reads as follows:
"1. The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the enquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing remit the case to the enquiring authority for fresh or further enquiry and report and the enquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold further enquiry according to the provisions of Rule 32 as far as may be.
2. The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the enquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.
3. If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Rule 29 should be imposed on the employee shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 31, make an order imposing such penalty.
4. If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that no penalty is called for, it may pass an order exonerating the employee concerned."
10. It is apparent from sub-rule (2) that the disciplinary authority is not required to record its reasons if it concurs with the enquiry officer's findings in contradiction with the situation in which the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the enquiring authority. Only in the latter case does sub-rule (2) expressly mandate that the disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the enquiry officer record its reasons for such disagreement as well as its own findings on such charges.
11. The respondent's reliance on the decision in M.D., ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727] is misplaced. That decision relates to the right of a delinquent officer to a copy of the enquiry officer's report. In the course of the judgment, the Court had no doubt said that the report of the enquiry officer is required to be furnished to the employee to make proper representation to the disciplinary authority before such authority arrives at its own finding with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the employee and the punishment, if any, to be awarded to him. By using the phrase "its own finding" what is meant is an independent decision of the disciplinary authority. It does not require the disciplinary authority to record separate reasons from those given by the enquiry officer. The concurrence of the disciplinary authority with the reasoning and conclusion of the enquiry officer means that the disciplinary authority has adopted the conclusion and the basis of the conclusion as its own. It is not necessary for the disciplinary authority to restate the reasoning.
11. Rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 which is relevant and reads as under :
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 09-09-2025 19:09:32NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42860 7 WP-24349-2018 "15. Action on the inquiry report.- (1) The disciplinary authority if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of rule 14 as far as may be.
(2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.
(3) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in rule 10 should be imposed on the Government servants, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty but in doing so it shall record reasons in writing:
Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any penalty on the Government servant."
12. Rule 15(3) of Rules of 1966 clearly provides recording of reasons in writing by the disciplinary authority.
13. In the present case, if the settled legal proposition and the Rules are applied to the instant case, then it is apparently clear that the disciplinary authority has not recorded its reasons in writing showing its dissatisfaction to the report submitted by the inquiry officer. The disciplinary authority outrightly without recording any reasons showing its dissatisfaction from the inquiry report has passed the impugned order imposing punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. In the case of Union Of India vs Vishwas Nimgaonkar, reported in 2021 (1) Supreme 650, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :
"1. The High Court having found that the disagreement note by the disciplinary authority did not contain reasons for differing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, it has remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for conducting the proceedings from the stage where the disagreement note was issued. The ultimate direction of the High Court, therefore, makes it clear that the disciplinary authority can proceed further in the matter after complying with the requirement as Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 09-09-2025 19:09:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42860 8 WP-24349-2018 indicated in the judgment of the High Court of indicating its reasons for differing with the view of the Inquiry Officer. In view of this position, it is not necessary for the Court to entertain the Special Leave Petition."
14. When the impugned order is adjudged on the anvil of above analysis, the same cannot be given the stamp of approval as there is no consideration with respect to the argument that the disciplinary authority has not recorded its reasons for disagreement with the report submitted by the inquiry officer. Under these circumstances, the order dated 18.06.2018 passed by the disciplinary authority is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner from the stage of submission of the inquiry report and pass a fresh order after following due procedure as contemplated under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The judgments pointed by the Court with respect to the settled legal proposition of law on the point may be taken note of by the disciplinary authority while passing orders.
15. In above terms, the petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE VV Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 09-09-2025 19:09:32