Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hari Sharan Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2017
1
W.P. No. 8632/2015
(Hari Saran Shrivastava & others Vs State of M.P. & others)
16/11/2017
Shri R.B.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, learned Government Advocate
for the respondents/State.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question the order dated 17/05/2017 passed by respondent No.4 whereby major penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed with the further observation that the petitioners shall be entitled for suspension allowance during suspension period.
The petitioners before this Court are Assistant Teachers holding class-3 post. The petitioners were placed under suspension on 29/03/2004 by Sub Divisional Officer, Dabra (M.P.) for alleged misconduct. The suspension was revoked on 16/04/2004 and on the same day, Sub Divisional Officer initiated a departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the C.C.A. Rules of 1966). A charge sheet was issued under Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1966 by the SDO on 19/04/2004 and the reply was filed on 06/05/2004. The disciplinary authority without conducting any enquiry as provided under Rule 14 of 2 W.P. No. 8632/2015 C.C.A. Rules, 1966 has passed an order dated 17/5/2004 whereby imposing a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of punishment have approached this Court for redressal of their grievance.
Grievance of the petitioners is that the order of punishment has been passed by the disciplinary authority without following the procedure prescribed under the C.C.A. Rules, 1966. It is further contended that no Enquiry Officer/presenting Officer was appointed and no enquiry under Rule 14 of C.C.A. Rules, 1966 was conducted. The Sub Divisional Officer had no authority to pass the impugned order, only Collector is empowered to pass the punishment order for class III & IV employees. On these grounds the order of punishment deserves to be set-aside.
The respondents have filed reply and it has been stated that there were serious allegations against the petitioners in respect of involvement in mass copying with the students while conducting the examination at the concerned examination center, the penalty imposed is adequate and the same is not disproportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioners. Moreover, the order of punishment has been passed following the provisions of the CCA Rules of 1966 and therefore, the order of punishment does not warrant any interference. The instant petition is hopelessly time-barred, as such the same deserves to be dismissed.
3 W.P. No. 8632/2015With regard to delay and laches in filing the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that present writ petition has been filed after 11 years of passing the impugned order, that by itself would not be a ground for dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay. The punishment imposed for stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has adverse consequential effect even after retirement of the petitioners. Every month less amount is received because of the punishment and even after retirement petitioners will receive less pension. Once there is continuous effect of the impugned punishment order and when it has adverse effect even after retirement, it has a continuous consequence every month. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the order passed by this Court in WA No. 117/2015 (Pankaj Yadav Vs State of M.P. ) dated 14th July, 2015.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that writ petition is maintainable and can not be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
In the present case, it is evident that petitioners were placed under suspension on account of alleged misconduct and later on the suspension order was also revoked by the authorities. The disciplinary authority has also passed an order for initiating a departmental enquiry as provided under Rules 14 of the C.C.A Rules, 1966. The 4 W.P. No. 8632/2015 disciplinary authority after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, inflicted the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect by the impugned order 17/05/2004 without conducting any enquiry.
The Apex Court in the case of Kuwant Singh VS State of Punjab, 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504 has held that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment, and therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the present case, a regular departmental enquiry as provided under Rule 14 CCA Rules, 1966, should have been conducted by the respondents. As the respondents have not followed the procedure prescribed for imposing major penalty, the order passed by the disciplinary authority 17/05/2004 (Annexure P-1) are hereby quashed. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass an appropriate order in the matter after following due procedure and affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law.
The respondents shall pass appropriate order in respect of regularizing the period during which the petitioners were placed under suspension.
With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Prachi* PRACHI Digitally signed by PRACHI MISHRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=cc727abda3453804cde48b1afcb367afdaf978aea111b MISHRA 1ff29eae55fd213bc09, serialNumber=c1f6c7b3b2d7fcd42440840cf9e7a7c177e01eab e96dbba40d811ecec6e23bc5, cn=PRACHI MISHRA Date: 2017.11.18 12:32:34 +05'30'