Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 34, Cited by 8]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dr. Yogiraj Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 2015

Author: S. K. Seth

Bench: S. K. Seth

                          WA-266-2015
         (DR. YOGIRAJ SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


06-10-2015
    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
              SEAT AT JABALPUR
                 Writ Appeal No.266/2015
                    Dr. Yogiraj Sharma
                            Vs.
                  State of M.P. & Others
Present: Hon’ble Shri Rajendra Menon, J. &
Hon'ble Shri S. K. Seth, J.
______________________________________________________
Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Arpan J.
Pawar, for the respondents.
_________________________________________________
                       JUDGMENT

(…../9/2015) Seeking exception to an order dated 15.4.2015 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P. No.2167/2013, this appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

2. Appellant was working as a Director in the Public Health and Family Welfare Department. It is said that he was appointed on 29.5.1982 as an Assistant Surgeon and on the basis of his excellent service, was promoted from time to time and finally, became the Director, Public Health and Family Welfare Department on 2.12.1998. On account of certain income tax raid conducted and based on certain adverse report submitted by the Income Tax Department, appellant was compulsorily retired on 10.12.2007. This retirement was challenged in W.P. No.386/2008 and a learned Single Bench of this Court had found that as the compulsory retirement was by way of punishment, was not in public interest, the petition was allowed. Matter went to a Division Bench in an appeal filed and in W.A. No.134/2009 this Court quashed the order of Compulsory retirement vide judgment dated 23.7.2009, however, liberty was granted to the department to proceed in accordance with law. It is said that the charge sheet in question which culminated into the impugned action, was issued to the appellant under Rule 14 of M.P. C.C.S. (CCA) Rules on 28.6.2009. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct a enquiry. The same was conducted by the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, who submitted his report and based on the same vide order dated 2.4.2013 punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. Initially appellant challenged the same in W.P. No.7618/2013 but withdrew it with liberty to file an appeal under Rule 23 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Appeal preferred was dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2013, thereafter, matter again came to this Court in a second Writ Petition i.e. W.P. No.21670/2013. Initially finding that opportunity of showing cause before imposing the punishment is not granted, after the enquiry report was submitted the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to conduct the enquiry from the stage of submitting report, but on an appeal being filed, i.e. W.A. No.884/2013, a Division Bench on 18.11.2014, remanded the matter back to the Writ Court for deciding all the grounds raised in the writ petition . Accordingly, by the impugned order as all the questions with regard to challenge to the Departmental Enquiry have been negated and the Writ Court having directed the departmental authorities to proceed in the matter from the stage of furnishing of the enquiry report in accordance to the Discipline and Appeal Rules, this appeal has been filed.

3. Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had challenged the action initiated against him and the termination order on the following grounds :-

(a) The charge sheet was vague and incapable of being understood;
(b) Documents as indicated in the charge sheet and necessary for defending the appellant and submitting his defence was not supplied and therefore, proceeding with the departmental enquiry without supplying these documents is illegal;

c. Essential witnesses for establishing charge No.2 and 3 were not called;

(d) The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer is only against charge No.1. No specific finding has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer with regard to Charge No.2 and 3 and the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse;

(e) Without supplying copy of the enquiry report the decision for dismissal was taken. No second show cause notice was issued and the appellant was apprised of the enquiry report being submitted from Newspaper report. As the punishment order has been imposed after considering the past service record of the appellant without notice to him and therefore, consideration of the past record without notice is unsustainable.

4. Shri Siddharth Gupta, took us through the charge sheet, the stipulations contained in the charge sheet, the application submitted by the appellant for supply of documents, the action of the respondents in not supplying the documents, not only the documents annexed to the charge sheet but even other documents requested for by the appellant, non grant of proper opportunity to submit his written statement, the requirement of Rule 14 of M.P. CCS (CCA) Rules and tried to argue that the entire enquiry stands vitiated. He took us through the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the manner in which the charges were held proved and submitted that the findings are perverse. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his contentions :-

Savai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan – (1986)3 SCC 454; Anand R. Kulkarni Vs. YP Education Society and others – (2013)6 SCC 515; Anil Glorkar Vs. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others- (2011)14 SCC 379; State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha – (2010)2 SCC 772; State of M.P. Vs. Chintaman Sadashiv Vaishampayan – AIR 1961 SC 1623; State of Punjab Vs. Bhagat Ram – (1975) 1 SCC 155; Trilok Nath Vs. UOI & Ors. - (1967)1 SLR 759; Venkatesh Guru Rao Vs. Syndicate Bank (Kar HC)- (2005)1 LLN 242; UOI Vs. Prakash Kumar Tandon – (2009)2 SCC 541;

UOI Vs. Dinanath S. Karekar – (1998)7 SCC 569; R. K. Vashishth Vs. UOI and ors. - (1993) Supp. 1 SCC 431; PCCF, AP Hyderabad Vs. T. Bhaskar Rao – (2006)7 SLR 849 (AP HC); Dr. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi Vs. UOI and ors.- (1994)2 SCC 416; MV Bijlani Vs. UOI & Ors. - (2006)5 SCC 88; Swami Prasad Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. - 2011(2) MPLJ 317; UOI Vs. Gyanchand Chattar – (2009)12 SCC 78; UOI Vs. K.A. Kittu and ors. - (2001)1 SCC 65; PNB Vs. K. K. Verma- (2010)13 SCC 494; Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. - (2010)11 SCC 278; Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs. State of UP and ors. - (2010)10 SCC 539; UOI & Ors. Vs. R. P. Singh – (2014)7 SCC 340 & Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidhyalaya & Ors. - (2013)10 SCC 324.

5. While making submissions Shri Siddharth Gupta referred to the applications submitted by the appellant and argued that the documents called for by the appellant vide his application dated 30.9.2009 and 7.2.2011, were not supplied and by referring to the findings recorded by the learned Writ Court to say that no such application was ever submitted, Shri Gupta argued by referring to a letter of Department to say that in this letter of the Department, reference has been made to the application submitted by the appellant on 30.9.2009 and therefore, the finding of the Writ Court that the appellant never submitted the application dated 30.9.2009 is a perverse finding. Detailed submissions were made by Shri Siddharth Gupta to say that essential documents, particularly the document of RCH Society for which the vehicle was allotted by the Government of India was not produced and this has resulted in denying reasonable opportunity of defence to the appellant. He argued that in an arbitrary and illegal manner, his services have been terminated and without taking note of all these factors, the impugned order is passed by the learned Writ Court.

6. He further argued that with regard to Charge No.2 and 3, learned Writ Court has held that burden of proof of this charges was on the appellant and by shifting the burden of proof, an error has been committed by the learned Writ Court. He further argued that relevant witnesses like one Shri Chouhan and Shri Minglani were not examined and this vitiates the entire proceedings. He submitted that the record of RCH Society was not produced or called for by the Enquiry Officer and therefore, the entire action stands vitiated. He reiterated that the finding recorded by the Writ Court are perverse and unsustainable.

7. Shri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State Government placed reliance on the following judgments and indicated the scope of review in a Writ Appeal and argued that on the grounds canvassed, the submissions made are not made out:-

Om Prakash Mann Vs. Director of Education (Basic) & Ors. - (2006)7 SCC 558; Anant Kulkarni Vs. YP Education Society and Ors. - (2013)6 SCC 515; SBI Vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra and Ors. - (2011)2 SCC 316; Chandrama Tewari Vs. UOI – 1987 (Suppl) SCC 518; Syndicate Bank and Ors. Vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati – (2006)3 SCC 150; Biecco Lawrie Vs. State of W.B. - (2009)10 SCC 32; Food Corporation of India Vs. Padmakumar Bhuvan – 1999 SCC (L&S) 620; State of UP Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha and Anr. - (2009) 8 SCC 310 & IOC Ltd. And Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora – (1997)3 SCC
72.

8. Shri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel refuted each and every contention of the appellant, took us through the charge sheet, allegations contained in the charge sheet, imputation of the misconduct, findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Writ Court and argued that there is no vagueness in the charge sheet, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are proper, all relevant documents were supplied, no prejudice has been caused and also indicating the scope of judicial review in such matters, learned Senior Counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and we have also gone through the record of the case and the detailed order passed by the learned Writ Court. The charges levelled against the appellant, who was working as Director of Health Services is to the effect that in the year 2002 a “Matiz Car” was sanctioned by the Government of India and was allotted to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal. It is alleged that the appellant got the vehicle registered in his own name under a private number, i.e. not the registration number normally allotted to Government vehicles, in the series of MP02, used the vehicle for his own personal purpose, misused his official authority and thereby, committed grave act of misconduct, accordingly, the impugned action was taken. It was alleged that the vehicle should have been registered as a Government vehicle under the series of MP02. It was not done by misusing his official position and by misrepresentation to the RTO, Bhopal, the vehicle was registered as a private vehicle in the series MP04, that also in the personal name of the appellant Shri Yogiraj Sharma and was used by him as a private vehicle.

10. These charges having been found to be proved, the impugned action was taken.

11. The first and foremost ground canvassed by Shri Siddharth Gupta was that the charges are vague and incapable of being understood and therefore, the entire enquiry stands vitiated in view of the above, in support of this contention he had relied to the judgment in the case of Anant Kulkari (supra) and Anil Glorkar (supra). In para 19 of the order passed by the learned Writ Court, this aspect of the matter has been considered and after taking note of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court as relied upon by Shri Siddharth Gupta and by Shri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, a finding is recorded to say that the charges are not vague and the question has been answered in the negative.

12. We have perused the charges levelled against the appellant, the allegations and the statement of imputation and we find no reason to disagree from the finding recorded by learned Writ Court. In fact, the learned Writ Court has reproduced the complete charges and the imputation of allegations in Hindi and on going through the same, we find that all material and facts in detail, necessary to understand, the allegations levelled against the appellant are contained in the charge sheet and it cannot be said that charges are vague or incapable of being understood, as a consequence thereof the appellant was handicapped in his defense. On the contrary, we find that each and every aspect, fact and details about the charges, total three in number are indicated. That being so, we find that the contention of the appellant that the charge sheet was vague, is not correct. The second ground canvassed by the appellant was that necessary documents in support of the charges were not supplied to the appellant. Appellant refers to two sets of documents in this regard. The first set of document are those contained in the list of documents annexed to the charge sheet and as indicated in the list of documents i.e. total 9 in numbers and the second set of documents are those said to have been summoned by the appellant by filing an application before the Enquiry Officer on 30.9.2010 and 7.2.2011. By referring to Rule 14, Shri Siddharth Gupta tried to indicate that non supply of the documents along with the charge sheet to enable the appellant to submit his reply vitiates the entire enquiry. He took us through the requirement of Rule 14(3) sub clause (d) of clause 14(3)(2) and tried to indicate that all the documents along with list of documents has to be supplied along with the charge sheet. He also referred to sub rule 6 of Rule 14 and clause (iv) thereof, to say that evidence providing the delivery of document indicated in sub rule 3 means delivery of the documents itself. It was tried to be indicated that in not supplying the documents along with the charge sheet to enable the applicant to submit his reply to the charges, the statutory rule has been violated and therefore, the entire enquiry stands vitiated. Thereafter, it was argued that as documents summoned by the appellant before the Enquiry Officer vide his application dated 7.2.11 is also not supplied, this also vitiates the enquiry.

13. With regard to supply of documents to the appellant two folds submissions are made. The first was that it was obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to supply all the documents alongwith the charge sheet and as this was not done, the inquiry stands vitiated. The second submission was that the relevant documents called for by the appellant should have been supplied before directing the appellant to submit reply to the charge sheet and as this is not done, the same vitiates the inquiry. Further submission was made to say that even thereafter, if the documents are not supplied at the stage of the inquiry, this is also fatal to the inquiry.

14. The learned writ court has taken note of requirement of Rule 14 and has recorded a specific finding holding that at the stage of issuance of the charge sheet and at the stage of directing the delinquent employee to file his reply to the charge sheet, only list of documents and inspection of documents, if requested for, is necessary and supplying the documents is not necessary.

15. Rule 14 of the Discipline & Appeal Rules contemplates a detailed procedure to be followed for imposing major penalties. Sub Rule-1 of Rule 14 contemplates that no order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in accordance to the provisions made therein. Thereafter, Sub rule 2 contemplates the power of the Disciplinary Authority to initiate the inquiry and Sub rules 3 and 4 which are relevant in the present context read as under :

“3. Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant under this rule and rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up-
i. the substance of the imputation of misconduct or mis-behaviour into the definite and distinct articles of charge:
ii. a statement of the imputations of misconduct or mis- behaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain:-
1. a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government servant;
2. a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.
4. The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government servant a copy of the article of charge, the statement of the imputations or misconduct or misbehavior and a list of documents and witnesses by which article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require the Government servant to submit, within such time as may be specified, a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person.” (Emphasis Supplied) A perusal of the aforesaid rule clearly indicates that where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant either under Rule 14 or under Rule 15, the Disciplinary Authority shall draw up or cause to draw substance of the imputation of misconduct or mis-

behaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge, statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in the form of relevant fact and list of documents and a list of witnesses by which the article of charges are proposed to be proved. It is, therefore, clear that the charge sheet is only to contain the list of documents and list of witnesses. Thereafter under Sub rule-4, the disciplinary authority is required to deliver to the Government servant a copy of the article of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior and a list of documents and witnesses by which article of charges are proposed to be proved. Till that stage, the statutory requirement no where contemplate supply of documents , it only contemplates supply of the list of documents. Further Rule 4 contemplates that within a period of time specified, written statement of defence should be submitted by the delinquent employee, a conjoint reading of Sub Rules 3 and 4 of the Discipline & Appeal Rules clearly indicates that before submitting the written statement of defence, the rule does not contemplate supply of the documents alongwith the charge sheet. Thereafter, the procedure followed on receipt of the statement of defence is indicated in sub rule 6 of Rule 14, which reads as under :

‘6. The disciplinary authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward to the inquiring authority-
i. A copy of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct and misbehavior; ii. A copy of the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the Government servant; iii. A copy of the statements of witnesses, if any, referred to in sub-rule(3);
(iv) Evidence providing the delivery of the documents referred to in sub-rule (3), to the Government servant; and a copy of the order appointing the “Presiding Officer”.

(Emphasis Supplied)

16. During the course of hearing by referring to clause

(iv) of Sub Rule-6, Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant tried to indicate that the evidence providing delivery of the documents referred to sub-rule (3) means evidence with regard to delivery of the documents forming part of the charge sheet.

17. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contentions. What is contemplated under this rule are the material which is to be forwarded to the Inquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority, apart from including the documents and other material indicated in sub clauses

(i), (ii) and (iii), the same should also include the evidence providing delivery of documents referred to in sub-rule-3 of Rule 14 and sub rule 3 only provides for the manner in which the charge sheet is to be drawn, namely, the substance of the imputation of misconduct or mis-behaviour, the statement of the relevant facts including any admission and confession of the Government employee and the list of documents and evidence.

18. That being so, the contention of Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant to say that under rule 14, the statute contemplates delivery of documents alongwith the charge sheet is not correct. What is contemplated under the statutory rule is only to forward a list of documents, by which charges are proposed to be proved. That is the intention of the Rule Maker. This is further clear when we see the charges, which were communicated to the appellant and requirement of rule which was indicated in the charge sheet. In the charge sheet Annexure P-11 issued to the petitioner on 26-08-2009, in para-2 it was clearly brought to the notice of the appellant that he has to submit his reply to the charge sheet within 15 days to the Principal Secretary, Government of M.P. Public Health & Family Welfare Department and he was also informed as to whether he wants personal hearing, whether he wants to take assistance of co worker, whether he wants any documents in defence or whether he wants to call for any witness in his defence and finally in para-2-C of the charge sheet, it was clearly indicated that in case before submitting his defence to the charge sheet, the appellant wants to refer or see the documents as indicated in the list, he may by giving notice to the competent authority within 10 days inspect the documents by approaching the officer concerned as specified in para 2-C. It is therefore, clear that at the stage of issuance of charge sheet , neither in the statutory rule nor in any other provisions, is there a requirement for supplying the documents to the appellant. The only requirement is to provide the list of documents and further, in the present case it is seen that the appellant was granted permission to inspect the documents, if he so desired. Neither was any inspection sought for by the appellant nor was any application submitted after the charge sheet was issued to the a appellant on 26-08-2009 for supplying of the documents. In fact the charge sheet was issued to the appellant on 26-08-2009 and the Inquiry proceedings in fact effectively commenced after more than 2 ½ years and during this period, there is no communication available on record to show that the appellant either inspected the documents or called for the documents. Appellant only refers to letters dated 30.9.2009 and 7.2.2011 to say that documents were not supplied in spite of demand. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that in holding that the inquiry is not vitiated because documents were not issued along with the charge sheet , the learned Writ Court has not committed any error. That apart in the matter of supply of documents to the appellant, the learned writ court has dealt with the matter in detail in para-20 while considering Issue No. D as formulated by the Writ Court, it is held that all the documents were supplied to the appellant during the course of enquiry by the Inquiry Officer.

19. Before adverting to consider this question, further, we may take note of the contentions of the appellant that the documents sought for vide his applications dated 30.9.2009 and 07-2-11 were not supplied . The learned writ court has gone into this aspect of the matter and it is found that in the original records of the proceedings of inquiry, this application dated 30.9.2009 is not available. That apart the copy of application filed along with the writ petition does not bear the acknowledgment of any person or official of the department nor is it precisely indicated in the order sheet maintained by the Enquiry Officer. We have also verified the record and we find that this finding of the learned writ court is correct. The appellant wants this court to draw an inference that because in a communication available on record i.e. Annexure R-2 dated 12-11-2009, reference is made to appellant’s application dated 30 th Sept. 2009, therefore, the appellant says that he had submitted the application for supplying of the documents . Even though there is a reference as alleged in Annexure R-2, but the letter dated 30.9.2009 is written by the appellant to the Secretary of the Department, whereas there is no acknowledgment of this letter and the appellant contention is that another letter was also submitted by him requesting for documents before the Inquiry Officer on 07-2-2011. These facts are not established from the documents available on record, that apart we are of the considered view that this aspect of the matter which was highlighted by Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing is not found to be correct , if we go through the detailed submissions recorded by the writ court from paras 20 onwards , it is also borne out from the original record which is available with us. We also find that the charge sheet was issued to the appellant as indicated hereinabove on 26-08-2009. Thereafter, the appellant did not submit any reply to the charge sheet and the Inquiry was ordered in the year 2010 and after the order of appointing Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer was passed the enquiry proceeding commenced on 5.5.2010 and effectively from 3.5.2012, between 5-5-2010 to 03-05-2012 i.e. for a period of two and half years, record does not indicate that the appellant ever inspected the documents or requested for any inspection as noticed to him while issuing the charge sheet or made any endeavor to see the documents . On the contrary the proceedings of the inquiry available on record, show that the inquiry officer initiated the proceeding on 19-03-2010, on 05-05-2010, the appellant appeared in the proceedings of the inquiry. On the same day, the appellant demanded copies of the documents as per list. The list was given to the Presenting Officer and the inquiry was adjourned to 24-05-2010. On 24-05-2010, the appellant was not present and therefore, the inquiry was adjourned to 08-07-2010. On 08-07-2010, the Inquiry Officer recorded that the appellant did not file his written statement of defence and the matter was fixed for recording of the departmental evidence to 07-02-2011. On 07-02-2011, the Presiding Officer produced certain documents before the Inquiry Officer. The proceedings of 07-02-11 are noted and reproduced by the writ court in para-20 which shows that the proceedings were held in the presence of the appellant, he had signed the order sheet and it is indicated in these proceedings that all the documents that were produced before the Inquiry Officer on 07-02-2011 were given to the appellant. The appellant accepted this and thereafter on 27-06-2011 also the proceedings of the inquiry shows that the request made by the appellant to produce the documents in defence was permitted and the inquiry was adjourned to 04-08-2011. That apart the proceedings of the inquiry dated 26-09-2011 indicates that all the documents including defence documents of the appellant were produced and the Inquiry Officer has noted that now all the preliminary process for production of the documents etc. by both the parties are concluded and the enquiry was fixed for evidence to be produced by the Presenting Officer . Thereafter on 27-11-2011, the appellant was present alongwith his defence assistance , he cross examined the witnesses produced by the Presenting Officer and did not raise any objection in the matter of production or supply of document.

20. In the findings recorded by the writ court in para 20 reference is made to, all the specific dates of the inquiry, the enquiry proceedings in Hindi is reproduced and it is held that the appellant has not raised any objection in the matter during the proceedings of the inquiry on the question of production of documents. On the contrary records shows that all the documents were produced in the inquiry and the appellant participated with the inquiry without any objection after counter signing on the order sheets and proceeding. Thereafter, now a complaint is made to say that the relevant documents were not produced. The relevant documents referred, are nothing but the records of RCH Society, these documents did not form part of the prosecution documents and was never relied upon by the department or the enquiry officer, accordingly, if the appellant felt that these documents were required by him, he should have summoned the same during the enquiry. On the contrary he accepted the documents produced in the inquiry, did not raise any objection and proceeded to participate in the inquiry without any objection. The question now would be as to whether the inquiry stands vitiated on the grounds canvassed in the light of this conduct of the petitioner a Senior Officer of the Department holding the post of Director and whether the requirement of law i.e. demonstration of prejudice is discharged by the appellant. Normally, if the relevant documents are not supplied to the delinquent officer and the inquiry is proceeded with, the law contemplates that the court is required to examine as to whether the documents requested for and not produced are the mandatory requirement as per the rules for conducting the inquiry and if they are the mandatory requirements then, no production of the documents vitiates the inquiry. As far as this aspect of the matter is concerned the the mandatory requirement was only to supply the list of documents along with the charge sheet and production of the documents referred to in the charge sheet in the Enquiry before evidence of the department is adduced, this mandatory requirement is complied with. The other documents required by the appellant are the documents which he wanted for his defence and if the appellant felt that non production of these documents which are not mandatory requirement vitiates the inquiry then the appellant is required to demonstrate, plead and prove the prejudice caused to him due to non production of these documents. In this regard, at this stage, we may refer to the law with regard to violation of principles of natural justice.

21. As far as violation of principles of natural justice and holding an enquiry to be vitiated on account of non supply of documents are concerned, it is a well settled principle of law that if the violation of a procedure alleged, is not a mandatory violation or is not contrary to the requirement of rules then prejudice caused has to be proved and established for seeking interference into the matter. In this regard, a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bidyut Kumar Mitra (supra) may be taken note of. In this case, it was the contention of the employee concerned that certain recommendations of the Central Vigilence Commission and certain other documents were not supplied to him and as the enquiry was held without supplying these documents, the enquiry stands vitiated. The Supreme Court took note of the aforesaid and found that neither the recommendation of the Chief Vigilence Commission was considered by the enquiry officer, it was not part of the material which formed the basis for recording a finding and therefore, if the appellant wanted to say that non production or non supply of these documents vitiates the enquiry or amounts to non observance of the principles of natural justice, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the appellant has to plead, prove and establish the prejudice caused. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note of various principles laid down by the Supreme Court in earlier judgments i.e. State Bank of Patiyala Vs. S. K. Sharma – (1996)3 SCC 364; Nagarjun Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Govt. of A.P. - (2008)16 SCC 276 and finally it has been held that mere non supply of a document by itself cannot be a ground to hold the enquiry to be vitiated. Consequently burden heavily lies on the delinquent employee to prove that the non supply of document has caused prejudice to him which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Until and unless miscarriage of justice and prejudice is not proved, it is held that the enquiry cannot be held vitiated. Similar is the principle laid down in the case of UOI vs. Alok Kumar – (2010)5 SCC 349. In this case also, it has been held that merely because certain reports pertaining to earlier action taken have not been produced in the departmental enquiry that by itself is not a ground for holding the enquiry to be vitiated. Here also advise of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner was not produced and the Supreme Court held that until and unless prejudice cause and miscarriage of justice is not established, the enquiry cannot be held to be vitiated. It has been held that onus lies on the delinquent employee to establish, plead and prove prejudice. Similar is the principle laid down in the case of Sarvat Upgramin Bank Vs. Manoj Kumar – (2010)3 SCC 556. That being so, in the present case, as far as the ground of non supply of document with the charge sheet, the same being not the requirement of statutory rule i.e. Rule 14, we find that the appellant has not pleaded or proved prejudice cause and therefore, on this ground we cannot hold the enquiry to be vitiated.

22. It was tried to be emphasized by Shri Siddharth Gupta by referring to the non production of documents and findings recorded with regard to charge No.2 and 3 to say that appellant is alleged to have got the vehicle registered as a private vehicle under the MP04 series and while doing so, the vehicle was not registered through the Transport Section of the Department of Health and Family Welfare Department. Shri Gupta submits that in the invoice sent by the Union of India the vehicle was in the name of the appellant Dr. Yogiraj Sharma and as the vehicle was to be used for a society the entire registration was done through the Society, the documents and other process were rooted through the Society and therefore, the documents with the RCH Society should have been produced. The case in the charge sheet was that the vehicle was allotted to the Health and Family Welfare Department, even though shown as in the name of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma, Director, Health and Family Welfare Department. The appellant did not get the vehicle registered through the Transport Section of the Department and in doing so, it is said that he has violated the rules. If it was the case of the appellant or if it was his defence that the vehicle was allotted to the society in question and it was the society which registered the vehicle, then it was for the appellant to summon the documents from the society and establish his defence. Except for contending that the documents were not produced, appellant has not made any effort to summon the documents from this Society itself. On the contrary, the documents available in the original enquiry file shows that the appellant himself wrote to the RTO, Bhopal for registering the vehicle as a private vehicle and there is nothing available on record to show that efforts were made by the appellant to get it registered in the name of the Society. That being so, we find that in holding that the enquiry was properly held and the charges leveled against the appellant are proved in accordance with the requirement of law, learned Writ Court has not committed any error. If we go through the various judgments and reasons given by the learned Writ Court to arrive at such a conclusion, we find that Writ Court has not committed any error. Contention of the appellant that enquiry officer has only held charge No.3 to be proved and no finding has been recorded with regard to charge No.2 and 3, is not correct. Findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer is in detail. He has discussed the charges and evidence that came on record and held all the charge to be proved. At the very outset, Enquiry Officer had recorded a finding that all the charges are interlinked to each other, are common and overlapping and, therefore, he is deciding all the charges together and has recorded a finding based on the same. That being so, we find no error in the procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer and by following such a procedure, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. Appellant by referring to Rule 14(23) of M.P. CCS (CCA) Rules and judgment in the case of Swami Prasad Yadav (supra) has tried to indicate that as specific finding to each charge has not been recorded or discussed, the finding of the Enquiry Officer is vitiated. In para 23 while deciding issue No. (h) learned Writ Court has gone into detail with regard to this aspect of the matter and has found that article of charges are interlinked to each other and Enquiry Officer having decided all the charges together, the principles laid down in the case of Swami Prasad Yadav (supra) will not apply. In our view, learned Writ Court has not committed any error in doing so.

23. Accordingly, grounds (a), (b), (c) and (d) as raised by the appellants in this appeal is found to be unsustainable. As far as the findings of the Enquiry Officer is concerned, we find that the Enquiry Officer has discussed the matter in detail and has recorded a reasonable finding.

24. It is seen that the inquiry in question was not held by any Officer of the Department in question. On the contrary, the inquiry was conducted by the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, Government of MP and a sitting Senior District Judge had conducted the inquiry. It was the case of the appellant that in the departmental inquiry sufficient evidence has not been adduced to hold that the charges are proved; the findings are perverse and because documents of the RCH Project were not produced, the inquiry is vitiated. We have already dealt with the matter of non-production of documents and its consequential effect.

25. As it was argued that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was perverse, even though the scope of judicial review may not permit reassessment of the evidence led before the inquiry, but to consider the question of perversity we have gone through the finding of the Enquiry Officer and we find that in the departmental inquiry, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They were Shri Rakesh Munshi – PW/1; Shri Om Prakash Garg – PW/2; Shri V.K. Gupta – PW/3; Shri P.N.S. Chouhan – PW/4. Shri Rakesh Munshi- PW/1 was holding the post of Deputy Director Transportation, in the Directorate of Health Services, and he has indicated the procedure for registration of vehicles, which are received in the Health Department. He states that all vehicles received either from Government of India for various Projects or for any other purpose are received in the Transport Department, the documents are given to the Transport Department, thereafter the registration is undertaken by the Transport Department normally as a government vehicle. As far as the vehicle in question is concerned, this witness categorically states that it is not registered through the department. Even its receipt from the Government of India is not recorded in the Department and without routing the vehicle through the department, appellant Dr. Yogiraj Sharma got it registered as a private vehicle. As far as defence of the appellant that he got the vehicle registered as it was allotted to the RCH Project is concerned, this witness says that this contention is also not correct, as the documents forwarded by the Government of India alongwith the vehicle indicates that it is allotted to the Directorate of Family Planning and Health and only the name of the appellant Dr. Yogiraj Sharma is shown as a representative of the department. This witness further says that the appellant misrepresented to the RTO, showing this vehicle to have been received for the RCH Project and got it registered in his name and not in the name of the Society. The witness says that this is an irregularity committed by the appellant. The learned Enquiry Officer has taken note of the statement of this witness in paragraph 12 and 13, with regard to the vehicle being allotted to the RCH Project and its registration. The learned Enquiry Officer finds that the vehicle has been registered as a private number in the services MP-04, in the name of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. It is held by the enquiry officer that there is nothing to show that the vehicle was registered in the name of the society or was allotted for the project.

26. Similarly, the learned Enquiry Officer has taken note of Ex.D/1 – the invoice cum delivery challan issued by Daewoo Motors Limited and it is held that it has been issued in the following name – Deputy Comptroller of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirmal Bhawan, New Delhi – assignee Dr. Yogiraj Sharma, Director, Department of Family Welfare, Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal. Accordingly, taking note of all these facts, the learned Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that the vehicle is allotted in the name of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma, Director, Department of Family Welfare and not in the name of any Society or any Project and, therefore, by writing to the RTO that the vehicle has been allotted to the RCH Project and then getting it registered in his name, it is held that the charge of misrepresentation to the RTO for getting the vehicle registered is proved.

27. Thereafter, statement of Shri Om Prakash Garg – PW/2 is taken note of and it is found that according to this witness he is also working in the Transport Department as a Sub Engineer. He is working in the Department for more than 24 years and he says that more than 800 vehicles were received during his service period from the Government of India. All the vehicles are allotted in the name of Director, Health Service and Family Planning by the Government of M.P.. He describes about the manner of delivery of the vehicle and says that every time the vehicle is registered in the name of the department and not in a private name or number as done in the present case. Taking note of the statement of this witness, it is held that the vehicle has been registered in a manner which is not permissible under law.

28. Thereafter, similar statements made by Shri P.N.S. Chouhan – PW/4 – State Health Transport Officer; and Shri V.K. Gupta – PW/3 – also an employee of the Transport Department, is taken note of and the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer is that the vehicle was allotted in the name of the Director, Family Welfare Department. There was nothing in the document or the material available on record, including allotment of vehicle by the Government of India to show that the vehicle was allotted to RCH Project and instead of getting the vehicle registered in the name of the department, as a government vehicle in the series MP-02, after routing it through the Transport Department, it is held that the appellant himself by writing a letter through his Personal Secretary, in his individual capacity got the vehicle registered; did not inform the Transport Department and without making entry of the vehicle in the Transport Department or in the log books of this Department etc, the vehicle was used.

29. Finally, in paragraph 24 of his report, the Enquiry Officer takes note of the preliminary inquiries conducted by Shri Ajit Kesri, Secretary, Government of MP, Department of Family and Health Welfare; Smt. Alka Upadhyaya; and, Shri K.K. Shukla and Shri M.B. Asthana, and holds that they are not inquiry in the proper sense. They are only the comments and observes of the Officers concerned, based on the querries made by them, they are not based on any proper inquiry and the same is not binding on the Enquiry Officer. On the contrary, the Enquiry Officer has recorded his finding based on the evidence that came on record. We have gone through the so called departmental preliminary inquiry reports as alleged by Shri Sidharth Gupta and we find that these documents only show the comments of the Officers and they are findings which are not based on any enquiry or evidence recorded in the matter, in accordance to the requirement of law and, therefore, in rejecting the same the Enquiry Officer has not committed any error.

30. We have gone through the report of Enquiry Officer and the findings as recorded hereinabove and we find that the Enquiry Officer has gone into all the aspects in details and the conclusions as has been arrived at is that normally in the Family Welfare & Health Department vehicles received are registered through the Transport section by the officers of the said Section; the registration fees are paid by the Transport section; entry of the vehicle is made in the Transport section and it is the Transport section which gets the vehicle registered with the RTO. In this case none of these procedure were followed, the appellant got the vehicle registered as a private number, in his own name, without routing it through the Transport Section and used it for his personal use. However, in the inquiry it was his defence that the vehicle was allotted to a Project, namely the RCH Project and it is the Project that registered the vehicle. However, there is nothing available on record to show that the Government of India had allotted the vehicle for the Project and if the Project was being run by a Society then the vehicle should have been registered in the name of the Society. The registration book available on record indicates that there is no mention of the vehicle being registered in the name of the society, it is registered in the name of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma, Director, Family Welfare Department. Taking note of all these circumstances, the Enquiry Officer has held the charges to be proved and in doing so, we find no error committed warranting reconsideration. The finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on due appreciation of the evidence that came on record and we cannot say that the same is perverse or unsustainable.

31. The scope of judicial review in the matters of administrative action pertaining to disciplinary proceeding has been discussed in detail by the learned Writ Court and it has been found that while exercising the limited scope of judicial review in this case, interference cannot be made. In this regard we may refer to a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of S. R. Tiwari Vs. Union of India – (2013)6 SCC 602, in para 19 and 20 of the aforesaid judgment, the scope of judicial review has been crystallized in the following manner :-

“19. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay & Ors. Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1182, this Court held that various parameters of the court’s power of judicial review of administrative or executive action on which the court can interfere had been well settled and it would be redundant to recapitulate the whole catena of decisions. The Court further held:
“It is a settled position that if the action or decision is perverse or is such that no reasonable body of persons, properly informed, could come to, or has been arrived at by the authority misdirecting itself by adopting a wrong approach, or has been influenced by irrelevant or extraneous matters the court would be justified in interfering with the same.”
20. The court can exercise the power of judicial review if there is a manifest error in the exercise of power or the exercise of power is manifestly arbitrary or if the power is exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist and which are patently erroneous. Such exercise of power would stand vitiated. The court may be justified in exercising the power of judicial review if the impugned order suffers from mala fide, dishonest or corrupt practices, for the reason, that the order had been passed by the authority beyond the limits conferred upon the authority by the legislature.

Thus, the court has to be satisfied that the order had been passed by the authority only on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety before it interferes. The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. Therefore, the court itself may be fallible and interfering with the order of the authority may impose heavy administrative burden on the State or may lead to unbudgeted expenditure. (Vide: Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11; People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 456; and State of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Anr. V. Sanjeev alias Bittoo, AIR 2005 SC 2080). “ (Emphasis Supplied)

32. Further after considering various judgments including the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Bodupalli Gopalaswami and Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India relied upon by the learned Writ Court in para 28, the principle is so laid down :-

“28. The role of the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. The court has to record reasons as to why the punishment is disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. (Vide:
Union of India Vs. Bodupalli Gopalaswami (2011) 13 SCC 553 and Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India , AIR 2012 SC 1783).” (Emphasis Supplied)

33. Once we find that the enquiry has been properly conducted, in accordance to the requirement of rules, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice, we cannot exercise any further power of judicial review and interfere into the matter. That apart, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of SBI Vs. Ram Lal – (2011)10 SCC 249 that while exercising powers of judicial review in administrative matters pertaining to disciplinary action being taken, this Court does not sit as a appellate authority over a finding of the disciplinary authority. In para 12 and 13 the matter has been so dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case :-

“12. This Court has held in State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. Sree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1723):
"The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence."

13. Thus, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence the High Court does not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence. This position of law has been reiterated in several decisions by this Court which we need not refer to, and yet by the impugned judgment the High Court has re-

appreciated the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are not substantiated by any material on record and the allegations leveled against the respondent no.1 do not constitute any misconduct and that the respondent no.1 was not guilty of any misconduct.” That being the legal position and scope of judicial review in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. That apart, in the judgment relied upon by Shri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel i.e. in the case of B. Venkataramani Vs. C.J Ayodhya Ram Singh – (2006)13 SCC 449 in para 11 the powers of the Division Bench in an Intra Court Appeal has been discussed in the following manner :-

In an intra-court appeal, the Division Bench undoubtedly may be entitled to re-apprise both questions of fact and law, but the following dicta of this Court in Umabai & Anr. vs. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (Dead) By Lrs. & Anr. [(2005) 6 SCC 243], could not have been ignored by it, whereupon the learned counsel for Respondents relied:
"It may be, as has been held in Asha Devi v. Dukhi Sao (1974) 2 SCC 492 that the power of the appellate court in intra-court appeal is not exactly the same as contained in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure but it is also well known that entertainment of a letters patent appeal is discretionary and normally the Division Bench would not, unless there exist cogent reasons, differ from a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Even as noticed hereinbefore, a court of first appeal which is the final court of appeal on fact may have to exercise some amount of restraint."

And finally after considering various judgments on the same issue in para 25 it has been held by the Division Bench should be slow in interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the Writ Court. If we analyze the judgment rendered by the learned Writ Court in the backdrop of the aforesaid legal principle, we find that learned Writ Court has gone into each and every aspect of the matter in detail and has recorded a finding to say that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and findings recorded by Enquiry Officer is legal and proper. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the reasonable judgment and decree passed by the learned Writ Court.

34. Even though during the course of hearing Shri Siddharth Gupta had referred to various judgments as are indicated herein above and has also submitted a written note with regard to relevancy of the judgment, we have not discussed the judgments separately as we find that the learned Writ Court has gone into each and every judgment and his detailed order give reason as to why judgments are not applicable. That apart, as we have applied the principles of law applicable in the matter with reference to the fact of the case, it is not necessary to refer to each and every judgment relied upon by Shri Siddharth Gupta as they do not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

35. That apart, we find that the learned Writ Court has after holding the enquiry to be properly held, has remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for proceeding with the enquiry from the stage of supply of Enquiry Officer report. That being so, question No. (e) and (f) pertaining to hearing after submission of the enquiry report and consideration of the past record before imposing the punishment are now to be reconsidered by the Disciplinary Authority and while reconsidering the matter in the light of the remand ordered by the learned Writ Court, the Disciplinary Authority shall take note of the requirement of law in the matter of issuing show cause notice with regard to accepting the finding of the Enquiry Officer and considering the past record before imposing the punishment. Taking note of all these aspects of the matter, the Disciplinary Authority may proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

36. With the aforesaid observations, finding no case made out for interference with the order passed by the learned Writ Court, we dismiss this appeal. 

(RAJENDRA MENON)                             (S.K. SETH)
      JUDGE                                     JUDGE