Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shravan Kumar Gaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233
1 WP-8838-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 8838 of 2018
SHRAVAN KUMAR GAUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 8843 of 2018
JITENDRA PAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Avinash Zargar - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This common order shall govern disposal of aforesaid writ petitions, pertaining to identical question of law, and heard analogously.
2. The facts and question of law involved herein are similar, however, in order to effectively address the issue involved herein, the facts relevant for adjudication are being culled out and taken from WP No.8843 of 2018.
3. The challenge is made to impugned order dated 15.03.2018 passed by the respondent No.2-Additional Secretary, State of M.P., Higher Education Department, Bhopal whereby the appeals preferred by both the petitioners Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 2 WP-8838-2018 against the order of removal from service were partly allowed and the order of punishment directing for removal from service was set aside and punishment of reduction to the lowest scale of pay was imposed upon the petitioners.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that at the relevant point, he was posted a s Prayogshala Paricharak in the respondent No.4-College. He was served with a charge-sheet levelling a single charge. Reply to the said charge-sheet was filed by the petitioner pleading his innocence, further contending that no such incident has taken place. The authorities concerned decided to contemplate departmental enquiry against the petitioner. He participated in the departmental enquiry. The inquiry officer found that no such incident took place and recommended for exoneration of the petitioner. Another enquiry was contemplated and the report was produced exonerating the petitioner holding that no such incident has taken place. The respondent No.3-Commissioner, Higher Education, M.P. in a cryptic manner without considering the enquiry reports has passed the punishment order directing for removal from service of the petitioner. The said order was put to challenge by filing an appeal which was partly allowed and the punishment order of removal from service was modified to that of reduction to the lowest scale of pay. The petitioner thereafter joined services.
5. It is pointed out that on the similar allegation, a criminal case was registered against both the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 294, 506, 323 read with 34 of IPC in which they were honourably acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment of acquittal dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 3 WP-8838-2018 10.06.2013 in Criminal Case No.484 of 2003. The learned trial Court observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and granting them benefit of doubt, they were acquitted. The said judgment of acquittal was assailed by filing of appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 07.09.2015 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court attained finality.
6. It is argued that once the enquiry officer has arrived at a conclusion that no such incident has taken place then the disciplinary authority should have observed the reasons for disagreeing with the report submitted by the enquiry officer and some opportunity of hearing should have been granted to the petitioner on such disagreement and thereafter the order should have been passed. But no such procedure has been followed by the authorities and outrightly the punishment order was passed which is per se illegal and contrary to the settled legal proposition of law.
7. To buttress the submissions, counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd. v. P.K. Khanna, (2005) 7 SCC 597 as well as in the case of K.K. Sharma vs State of M.P. : WP No.20123 of 2012 decided on 29.04.2024.
8. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents/State by filing the reply has supported the impugned orders. It is specifically contended that the interference in the cases of departmental enquiry is limited to the extent of the procedure being adopted by the authorities. The fact-finding or roving Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 4 WP-8838-2018 enquiry or reappreciation of evidence cannot be done at this stage. It is pointed out that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner to which he replied. Being dissatisfied with the reply, a decision to initiate departmental enquiry was taken. The petitioner duly participated in the departmental enquiry. It is not a case of the petitioner that opportunity of hearing to lead effective defence etc. was not granted to him. The entire case is based upon the fact that two enquiry reports were submitted. Both exonerated the petitioners. Therefore, disciplinary authority should have granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and should have recorded reasons for its dissatisfaction from the enquiry reports prior to holding them guilty and passing the impugned order. It is contended that if the evidence produced in the enquiry is seen then admittedly the principal/victim R.S. Purwar was lying on the floor and blood was oozing out of his nose at the relevant time. The presence of the petitioner was admitted by himself as well as by Santosh Malviya who was the witness to the incident. Even otherwise, it is not an honourable acquittal that has been granted by the trial Court to the petitioners because if the findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class are seen then it was observed that if the statement of complainant R.S. Purwar is seen, the prosecution story cannot be disbelieved in toto. It creates a suspicion on the prosecution case but granting them benefit of doubt, both the accused i.e. petitioners were acquitted in the criminal case. It cannot be said that it was an honourable acquittal, therefore, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the enquiry report. Therefore, the impugned order is just and proper. It is further contended that the disciplinary authority has passed an Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 5 WP-8838-2018 punishment order of removal from services and on appeal being preferred, the appellate authority took a lenient view in the matter and the punishment order of removal from services was modified to that of reduction to the lowest scale of pay. Therefore, the impugned order is well reasoned order which does not call for any interference. He has prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner has been working in the respondent-college and issuance of charge-sheet levelling one charge which reads as under :
आपके व आरोप है क आपके ारा दनांक 07.10.03 को समय 09.10 बजे पर ाचाय क म ी आर.एस. पुरवार, ाचाय पर ी एस. के. गौर के साथ िमलकर ाचाय पर गाली गलोज करते हुए जाने लेवा हमला कया ।
11. For the said charge/allegation, a criminal case was also registered against the petitioners namely Shravan Kumar and Jitendra for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 294, 506, 323 read with 34 of the IPC at Crime No.259 of 2003 at Police Station Seoni Malwa District Hoshangabad. The petitioners were tried for the said offences and vide judgment dated 10.06.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Seoni Malwa in Criminal Case No.484 of 2003, they were acquitted. An appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal was dismissed vide order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Criminal Appeal No.359 of 2015.
12. In the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner, he duly participated. The enquiry officer/principal submitted his first report in terms of Annexure P/3 exonerating the petitioner from the said charge holding that Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 6 WP-8838-2018 no such incident has ever taken place. Vide Annexure P/4, another enquiry was submitted by the Regional Additional Director. Higher Education holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not found proved and therefore recommended for exoneration from the said charge. Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the Commissioner, Higher Education being the disciplinary authority who found both the petitioners guilty of the said charge and accordingly passed the punishment order of removal from service. From the perusal of the said order, it is seen that after being acquitted in the criminal case, the petitioner's suspension was revoked and he (J.K. Pal) was reinstated in service and posted at Govt. Mahavidyalaya Panchmedi and the departmental enquiry was continued. Letter dated 15.05.2017 was issued to the petitioners asking for their personal appearance on 24.05.2017 before the Commissioner, Higher Education. They appeared before the authority. After considering the record of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners have been found guilty of misbehaving and causing injuries to the then Principal R.S. Purwar. Accordingly, vide order dated 30.05.2017, the impugned order of punishment in terms of Rule 10(ix) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short 'Rules of 1966') i.e. dismissal from service was passed. The final order passed on 30.05.2017 does not reflect consideration/reasons assigned by the Commissioner, Higher Education showing his disagreement with the enquiry reports submitted by the Principal as well as Additional Director, Higher Education.
13. The law to the aforesaid proposition is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 7 WP-8838-2018 Court in the case of P.K. Khanna (supra) 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 termination is vitiated as it is a non-speaking order and does not Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 8 WP-8838-2018 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 9 WP-8838-2018 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.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 has held as follows :
23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of self-same evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved.
A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Vallikumari v. Andhra Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 10 WP-8838-2018 Education Society, (2010) 2 SCC 497 in a matter of departmental enquiry has observed that when Disciplinary Authority passed an order of removal without recording reasons and by simply referring the findings of the Enquiry Officer then the Supreme Court has held that the said order vitiated due to violation of the statutory rules and principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court has also observed that the requirement of recording reasons by every quasi judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognized facets of the rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the authority concerned. However, that case is dealing with the specific rules, i.e. Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 in which the specific obligation is casted upon the Disciplinary Authority and the respective provision which deals with the obligation reads as under:-
"12. Chapter not to apply to unaided minority schools.--Nothing contained in this Chapter shall apply to an unaided minority school."
Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 "120. Procedure for imposing major penalty.--(1) No order imposing on an employee any major penalty shall be made except after an enquiry, held, as far as may be, in the manner specified below:
(a) the disciplinary authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegation on which the enquiry is proposed to be held and a copy of the charges together with the statement of the allegations on which they are based shall be furnished to the employee and he shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the disciplinary authority, but not later than two weeks, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 11 WP-8838-2018
(b) on receipt of the written statement of defence, or where no such statement is received within the specified time, the disciplinary authority may itself make enquiry into such of the charges as are not admitted or if considers it necessary so to do, appoint an enquiry officer for the purpose;
(c) at the conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer shall prepare a report of the enquiry regarding his findings on each of the charges together with the reasons therefor;
(d) the disciplinary authority shall consider the record of the enquiry and record its findings on each charge and if the disciplinary authority is of opinion that any of the major penalties should be imposed, it shall--
(i) furnish to the employee a copy of the report of the enquiry officer, where an enquiry has been made by such officer; (ii) give him notice in writing stating the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and calling upon him to submit within the specified time, not exceeding two weeks, such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed action; (iii) on receipt of the representation, if any, made by the employee, the disciplinary authority shall determine what penalty, if any, should be imposed on the employee and communicate its tentative decision to impose the penalty to the Director for his prior approval; (iv) after considering the representation made by the employee against the penalty, the disciplinary authority shall record its findings as to the penalty which it proposes to impose on the employee and send its findings, and decision to the Director for his approval and while sending the case to the Director, the disciplinary authority shall furnish to him all relevant records of the case including the statement of allegations, charges framed against the employee, representation made by the employee, a copy of the enquiry report, where such enquiry was made, and the proceedings of the disciplinary authority."
16. Further, the Supreme Court in case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 has held as under :
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 12 WP-8838-2018
19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.
17. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1966 which is relevant and reads as under :
"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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 13 WP-8838-2018 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."
18. Rule 15(3) of Rules of 1966 clearly provides recording of reasons in writing by the disciplinary authority. The aforesaid aspect was considered in the case of R.K. Vishwakarma vs M.P. State Electricity Board and others :
Writ Petition No. 3304 of 2008(s) as well as in the case of Arunendra Prasad Maurya vs M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. : Writ Petition No.20351 of 2020. In R.K. Vishwakarma's case (supra), it is held as follows :
"13. Now the second question is whether the Disciplinary Authority has acted in terms of the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules while accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer. For the purpose of appreciation and elaborate consideration of the effect of the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules, the same is reproduced hereunder, which reads thus : *** *** The provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules make it clear that Disciplinary Authority is required to apply its mind while recording the findings on article of charge levelled against the delinquent employee. The provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the Rules enable the Disciplinary Authority to record its own finding on all or any of the article of charge and then to form opinion as to which penalty under Rule 10 is to be imposed on the employee concerned, if the misconduct is said to be proved. Reading as a whole if the order impugned is examined, it would be clear that finding in that respect were not recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and only a satisfaction was recorded with respect to the conduct of the enquiry and giving finding by the Enquiry Officer. In fact the Disciplinary Authority has given his opinion in the following manner :
"AND WHEREAS, in view of the above misconduct proven in the departmental enquiry and considering the gravity of the misconduct, the total fact and Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 14 WP-8838-2018 circumstances of the case, it has been finally decided by the competent authority to impose the penalty of DISMISSAL from the MPSEB Services against Shri R.K. Vishwakarma, O.A.Gr.I(U/s).
NOW THEREFORE, the services of Shri R.K.Vishwakarma, O.A.Gr.I(U/s) stands DISMISSED from the MPSEB Services with immediate effect."
14. By no stretch of imagination, such recording of fact can be treated as recording of reasons for holding a misconduct proved by the Disciplinary Authority. It is not clear whether such a ground was raised by the petitioner in his appeal or not, yet it was the requirement of the Appellate Authority to consider all these aspects as an appeal is required to be considered under Rule 27 of the Rules and this has to be examined by the Appellate Authority whether the procedure laid- down under the Rules has been followed or not. The order issued by the Appellate Authority do not indicate any such finding. As such, the issue whether the penalty could be imposed on the charge so levelled against the petitioner or not was not decided by the Appellate Authority. The appeal of the petitioner was also not decided in accordance to law.
15. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the order impugned dated 31.01.2007 cannot be sustained. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 31.01.2007 is quashed. The petitioner be reinstated in the service immediately with all consequential benefit. However, the respondents would be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner afresh in case any misconduct of the petitioner is prima facie made out. This order will not come in the way of conducting fresh enquiry."
19. In the present case, if the settled legal proposition is applied to the instant case, then it is apparently clear that the disciplinary authority though issued notice on 15.05.2017 to the petitioner asking him to appear on 24.05.2017 along with the documents but the disciplinary authority has not recorded its reasons in writing showing its dissatisfaction to the enquiry reports submitted by the inquiry officers. The same is a material aspect and Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 15 WP-8838-2018 requires to be considered by this Court as the same is a valuable right of the petitioner as he was required to submit his response to the inquiry report and only thereafter disciplinary authority could have passed an order recording its dissatisfaction in writing to the enquiry report but nothing has been done by the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority outrightly without recording any reasons showing its dissatisfaction from the enquiry reports has passed the impugned order directing removal from service on 30.05.2017 exercising the powers under Rule 10(ix) of Rules of 1966. It is trite that the legal arguments can be raised at any stage of proceedings, even if they are not raised before the authorities at the relevant time.
20. Once this Court arrives at a conclusion that the initial order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the disciplinary authority regarding removal from service was put to challenge by appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority modified the punishment order of removal from service to that of reduction in the lowest scale of pay, the same is impermissible for the reason that the disciplinary authority was required to record reasons showing its dissatisfaction with the enquiry reports submitted by the inquiry officers.
21. Further, the aforesaid aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SBI v. Mohd. Badruddin, (2019) 16 SCC 69 wherein it is held as follows :
24. In Kunj Behari Misra [Punjab National Bank v.
Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84), it is categorically held that when the Inquiry Report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions then that authority must give the delinquent an opportunity of being heard, for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 96, para 17) Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 16 WP-8838-2018 "17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit case [State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, AIR 1963 SC 1612] quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the enquiry officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar case [ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184] the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the enquiry officer. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority."
22. Recently, in the case of Union Of India & Ors. v. Vishwas Nimgaonkar, 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 17 WP-8838-2018 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 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."
23. If the aforesaid settled legal proposition of law is applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is seen that the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 30.05.2017 could not have been given the stamp of approval. The same was rightly set aside by the appellate authority in appeal on 15.03.2018. However, the appellate authority while passing the order dated 15.03.2018 which is the order impugned, has imposed the punishment of reduction to the lowest scale of pay to the petitioners. If the appellate order dated 15.03.2018 is seen, there is no consideration with respect to the argument that the disciplinary authority has not recorded its reasons for disagreement with the reports submitted by the enquiry officers. The appellate authority has only considered that looking to the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the punishment imposed on them found to be disproportionate and accordingly instead of punishment of removal from service, has imposed the punishment of reduction to the lowest scale of pay. The fact remains that whether the order passed by the disciplinary authority was sustainable and could have been passed in the circumstance when no reasons are assigned by the appellate authority showing disagreement with the enquiry reports.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63233 18 WP-8838-2018
24. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the appellate authority dated 15.03.2018 is unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority i.e. State Government for reconsideration of the appeals preferred by the petitioners and pass fresh orders after granting opportunity of hearing to them. 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 appellate authority while passing the orders.
25. In above terms, both the petitions are disposed of finally. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE VV Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 15-01-2025 18:01:21