Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913
1 WP-9940-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 9940 of 2022
AMIT KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Warija Ghildiyal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Jubin Prasad - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 08/04/2022 passed by respondent No.1, whereby major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed on the petitioner under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1966').
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer in the Employment Department of the State Government on 20/07/2005. On successful completion of period of probation, he was taken into regular establishment. He was promoted on the post of District Employment Officer on 02/07/2012. Petitioner at the time of his appointment had submitted several documents regarding his educational qualifications which were duly verified by the Authorities prior to issuance of appointment order to the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner was married to one one Sushila Singh on 17/04/2006. A matrimonial dispute took Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 2 WP-9940-2022 place between them resulting into filing of several complaints by his wife to the Department. One of the main complaint being procuring government employment on the basis of forged marksheets of 10th and 12th class. She has made an attempt to register an FIR against the petitioner but on refusal by the Police Authorities, a Writ Petition being W.P. No.14729/2017 was preferred by her before this Court which was dismissed by order dated 06/10/2017. A divorce petition was filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and decree of divorce was granted in her favour on 25/10/2017. On the basis of false and fabricated complaint made by the petitioner's wife, a preliminary enquiry was conducted under the order of respondent No.2. The statement of petitioner was recorded, however, no other witness was examined in presence of the petitioner. No opportunity was granted to the petitioner to remain present in the said preliminary enquiry. A copy of preliminary enquiry report was never supplied to the petitioner. Based upon the said preliminary enquiry report, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner by respondent no.2 on 05/05/2018 levying three charges. Charge No.1 is that he secured the Government job based upon forged and fabricated 10th and 12th class marksheets. Charge No.2 is that the Certificates of B.Sc. and M.Sc. being forged and fabricated and Charge No.3 is that he has produced a forged and fabricated Caste Certificate in the Family Court relating to his daughter Swarna Singh. He was asked to submit his reply to the charge-sheet within a period of 15 days. A detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner to all the charges specifically denying that the petitioner had not produced any forged Certificate. It was also mentioned that the complaint made against the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 3 WP-9940-2022 petitioner was false and was an outcome of matrimonial dispute. However, the Authorities were not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner and directed for initiation of departmental enquiry.
3 . It is argued that the Enquiry Officer proceeded in the matter in a manner unknown to law. The procedure as contemplated under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966 was not followed by the enquiry officer at all. No witnesses were examined in the departmental enquiry on behalf of the Department. The petitioner was not granted any opportunity to examine any witness in support of his case. As there was no witness examined by the Department, therefore there was no opportunity granted to him to cross-examine any witness. Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity for making any statement in the departmental enquiry. Even the Defence Assistant was not provided to the petitioner despite request. The enquiry officer has placed reliance on the preliminary enquiry report submitted by Shri Anil Kumar Dubey, who though was produced before the enquiry officer, but refused to make any statement stating that he has nothing more to add on to the previous preliminary enquiry conducted by him. He was never presented for cross examination. Based upon the preliminary enquiry report and based upon the personal knowledge, the enquiry officer has found the charges levied against the petitioner proved and held the petitioner guilty of charge No.1 and charge No.2. However, for the third charge, he was exonerated. After submission of enquiry report to respondent No.2 on 20/12/2017, no action was taken for a period of two years against the petitioner. Thereafter on 14/01/2020, petitioner was asked to submit reply to the enquiry report within 15 days. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 4 WP-9940-2022 notice dated 14/01/2020 was put to challenge by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.3213/2020. However, the said Writ Petition was withdrawn on 11/02/2020. After withdrawal of the Writ Petition, he submitted a reply to the show cause notice. He was asked to remain present before the disciplinary Authority for providing personal hearing on 19/06/2020. He attended the personal hearing. Thereafter, no order was passed by the disciplinary Authority for a period of two years. Now, all of a sudden, the impugned order has been passed on 08/04/2022, whereby major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. It is pointed out that the matter was forwarded to the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission seeking its opinion and the MPPSC has concurred with the Department for imposition of proposed penalty of dismissal but the opinion of MPPSC was not supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and Others Vs. B.V. Gopinath reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351, Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2013) 4 SCC 3 0 1 , Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others reported i n (2009) 2 SCC 570, G. Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society and Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 497, Union of India and Others Vs. R.P. Singh reported in (2014) 7 SCC 340, Union of India and Others Vs. S.K. Kapoor reported in (2011) 4 SCC 589 and Union of India and Others Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma reported in (2018) 7 SCC 670 as well as the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 5 WP-9940-2022 others Vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, Bhopal reported in ILR 2004 MP 821 and argued that there is no procedure followed by the enquiry officer while conducting departmental enquiry. The entire enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer is verbatim to that of preliminary enquiry report. No witnesses were examined by the Department. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner to put up his defence. There is no application of mind by the enquiry officer while submitting enquiry report. Even otherwise, the Authorities have not taken into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and without verification of the facts that the so called allegations leveled regarding procurement of government job based upon the false and fabricated documents, the said documents could have been verified and ascertained from the competent Authorities i.e. the School Department/ Board from which the petitioner has passed out his Class 10th and 12th as well as from the Colleges or the Universities from which the petitioner has imparted his higher education. Without ascertaining the aforesaid aspects, how the Authorities have arrived at a conclusion that the charges No.1 and 2 levied against the petitioner were found to be false and fabricated. The enquiry was to be conducted in a manner known to law which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, she has paid for quashment of the impugned order.
5. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by the respondents and a preliminary objection is taken by the respondents with respect to maintainability of the petition without availing the alternative and efficacious remedy. It is contended that under Rule 24 of Rules, 1966, an alternative and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 6 WP-9940-2022 efficacious remedy of Appeal is available to the petitioner and without availing the said remedy, the present petition is not maintainable. He has heavily relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. P.N. Raikwar reported in ILR 2018 MP 2619.
6 . To rebut the aforesaid contention of the respondents/State, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the entire proceedings have been taken up contrary to the rules and provisions and without affording any opportunity of leading evidence or cross-examine the witnesses to the Department and without ascertaining the falsity of the documents from concerning Board or the Universities, the Authorities in the most whimsical manner has passed the impugned order. It is further contended that the initial appointment of the petitioner was in the year 2005 and after facing due recruitment drive and on successful completion of probation period, he was regularized by order dated 29/02/2008. He was further promoted to the post of District Employment Officer on 02/07/2012. Prior to issuance of appointment order to the petitioner, all the credentials and documents regarding his academic qualifications were duly verified by the Department and finding that the petitioner is fulfilling all the required qualifications to hold the post in question, he was appointed. Therefore, without verification of the said documents, merely based upon a preliminary enquiry report, the findings have been recorded by the enquiry officer and duly affirmed by the disciplinary Authority. The principles of natural justice and fair play are not followed by the Authorities. Pure question of law is involved in the case, therefore, the petition directly before this Court is maintainable.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 7 WP-9940-2022 7 . Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of this petition on the ground of alternative and efficacious remedy.
8 . A specific stand is taken with respect to non-following the entire procedure as contemplated in Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966 coupled with the fact that the principles of natural justice and fair play have not been followed in the matter by the Authorities. Once the principles of natural justice have not been followed by the Authorities and there is involvement of question of law then the Writ Petition directly before this Court can be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Whirlpool Corpn. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 428.
9 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corpn. (supra) has held as under:-
"14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose.
15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 8 WP-9940-2022 filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. (supra) has held as under:-
"23. In Union of India v. State of Haryana [Union of India v. State of Haryana, (2000) 10 SCC 482] the assessing authorities imposed sales tax on the rentals charged for supply of telephones. Writ petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the levy. The writ petitions were dismissed on the ground that an alternative remedy of a statutory appeal was available. An appeal against these orders was filed before this Court. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the High Court for determination since it involved a question of law on whether the supply of telephones amounted to sale.
24. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondents have miscalculated the duty and penalty imposed on it. The appellant contends that the State Government does not have the power to levy tax on its sale of electricity to BSEB. Thus, the plea strikes at the exercise of jurisdiction by the Government. In view of the law discussed above on the rule of alternative remedy, the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction if the order of the authority is challenged for want of authority and jurisdiction, which is a pure question of law."
11. Under these circumstances and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents with respect to maintainability of petition on the ground of availability of alternative and efficacious remedies is hereby rejected.
12. On merits, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that a preliminary enquiry was conducted into the matter wherein the statement of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 9 WP-9940-2022 petitioner was recorded. Thereafter, after submission of reply by the petitioner to the show cause notice, decision was taken to initiate a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Petitioner was permitted to participate in the departmental enquiry and thereafter the enquiry officer found charges No.1 and 2 proved against the petitioner and thereafter the punishment order has been passed by the disciplinary Authority. Therefore, no interference can be made in a well reasoned order passed by the Authorities at this stage and no appreciation of evidence and material before the enquiry officer can be looked into at this stage. Therefore, placing reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Union of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, he has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
14. The record indicates that a preliminary enquiry was conducted into the matter by the Authorities, wherein petitioner was heard. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, a decision was taken to initiate departmental enquiry. It is the specific stand of the petitioner that there is denial to all the charges leveled in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the departmental enquiry should have been conducted in terms of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966 as major punishment of termination of service has been imposed.
15. The charge sheet was issued to the petitioner levying following three charges:-
"आरोप कमांक-1:-
आपके ारा फज एवं कूट रिचत तर के से तैयार कये गये 10 वी. 12 वी. के शै णक यो यता के माण प के आधार Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 10 WP-9940-2022 पर शासक य नौकर ा क गई ह। आपका उ कृ य गंभीर कृ ित का एवं जालसाजी क ण े ी म आता है जो म य दे श िस वल सेवा (आचरण) िनयम-1965 के िनयम-3 के वपर त है ।
आरोप कमांक-2:-
आपके ारा फज एवं कूट रिचत तर के से तैयार कये गय बी.एससी. एवं एम.एससी के शै णक यो यता के माण प के आधार पर शासक य नौकर ा क गई ह। आपका उ कृ य गंभीर कृ ित का एवं जालसाजी क ण े ी म आता है , जो म य दे श िस वल सेवा (आचरण) िनयम-1965 के िनयम-3 के वपर त है ।
आरोप मांक-3:-
आपके ारा आपक पु ी वणा िसंह का जाित माण प फज एवं कूटरिचत तर के से तैयार कर कुटु ब यायालय र वा म तुत कया गया है । आपका उ कृ य गंभीर कृ ित का एवं जालसाजी क ण े ी म आता है तथा िस वल सेवा आचरण िलयम-1965 के िनयम-3 के वपर त है ।"
16. After conclusion of departmental enquiry, charges No.1 and 2 were found proved against the petitioner and petitioner was exonerated from the third charge. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in the entire departmental enquiry, none of the departmental witnesses were examined. No defence assistant was provided to the petitioner. The petitioner was not granted any opportunity to examine any of his witnesses in his defence. Even the officer who has held the preliminary enquiry was not produced as a witness. However, it is contended by him that he has refused to give any statement because he has nothing more to say than what has been recorded in the preliminary enquiry. The requirements of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966 have not been followed.
1 7 . Rule 14 of the Rules 1966 is important and the same reads as under:-
"14. Procedure for imposing penalties.
(1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this rule and Rule 15 or in the manner provided by the Public Servants' (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850), where such inquiry is held under that Act.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 11 WP-9940-2022 (2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government servant, it may itself inquire into or appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to Inquire into the truth thereof.
Explanation. - Where the disciplinary authority itself holds the inquiry, any reference in sub-rule (7) to sub- rule (20) and in sub-rule (22) to the inquiring authority shall be construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority.
(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 misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge;
(ii)a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain :-
(a)a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government servant;
(b)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 of misconduct or misbehaviour 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.
(5)(a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint, under sub-rule (2), an inquiring authority for the purpose; and where all the articles of charges have been admitted by the Government servant in his written statement of the defence the disciplinary authority shall record its finding on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in Rule 15;
(b)If no written statement of defence is submitted by the Government servant, the disciplinary authority may itself Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913
12 WP-9940-2022 inquire into the articles of charge or ma;, if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint, under sub-rule (2), an inquiring authority for the purpose;
(c)Where the disciplinary authority itself inquires into any article of charge or appoints an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as the "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge.
(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 misbehaviour;
(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".
(7)The Government servant shall appear in person before the inquiring authority on such day and at such time within ten working days from the date of receipt by him of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, as the inquiring authority may, by a notice in writing specify in that behalf, or within such further time, not exceeding ten days, as inquiring authority may allow.
(8)The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to present the case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner, for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits.
(9)If the Government servant who has not admitted any of the articles of charge in his written statement of defence or has not submitted any written statement of defence, appears before the inquiring authority, such authority shall ask him whether he is guilty to any of the articles of charge, the inquiring authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the Government servant thereon.
(10)The inquiring authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of these articles of charge to which the Government servant pleads guilty.
(11)The inquiring authority, shall, if the Government servant fails to appear within the specified time or Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 13 WP-9940-2022 refuses or omits to plead, require the Presiding Officer to produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles of charge, and shall adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding thirty days, after recording an order that the Government servant may, for the purpose of preparing his defence-
(i)inspect within five days of the order or within such further time not exceeding five days as the inquiring authority may allow, the documents specified in the list referred to in sub-rule (3);
(ii)submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf.
Note.-If the Government servant applies orally or in writing for the supply of copies of the statements of witnesses mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule (3), the inquiring authority shall furnish him with such copies as early as possible and in any case not later than three days before the commencement of the examination of the witnesses on behalf of the disciplinary authority.
(iii)Give a notice within ten days of the order or within such further time not exceeding ten days as the inquiring authority may allow, for the discovery or production of any documents which are in the possession of Government but not mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule (3).
Note. - The Government servant shall indicate the relevance of the documents required by him to be discovered and produced by the Government.
(12)The inquiring authority shall, on receipt of the notice for the discovery or production of documents forward the same or copies thereof to the authority in whose custody or possession the documents are kept, with a requisition for the production of the documents by such date as may be specified in such requisition :
Provided that the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, refuse requisition to such of the documents as are, in its opinion, not relevant to the case.
(13)On receipt of the requisition referred to in sub-rule (12), every authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents shall produce the same before the inquiring authority:
Provided that if the authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that the production of all or any of such documents would be Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913
14 WP-9940-2022 against the public interest or security of the State, it shall inform the inquiring authority accordingly and the inquiring authority shall, on being so informed, communicate the information to the Government servant and withdraw the requisition made by it for the production or discovery of such documents.
(14)On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge arc proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the Government servant. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re- examine the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined but not on any new matter, without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit.
(15)If it shall appear necessary before the close of the case on behalf of the disciplinary authority, the inquiring authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer, to produce evidence riot included in the list given to the Government servant or may itself call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any witness and in such case the Government servant shall be entitled to have if he demands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for three clear days before the production of such new evidence, exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to which the enquiry is adjourned. The inquiring authority shall give the Government servant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record. The inquiring authority may also allow the Government servant to produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in the interest of justice.Note. - New evidence shall not be permitted or called for or any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produced originally.
(16)When the case for the disciplinary authority is closed, the Government servant shall be required to state his defence, orally or in writing, as he may prefer. If the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the Government servant shall be required to sign the record, in their case, a copy of the statement of defence shall be given to the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed. (17)The evidence on behalf of the Government servant shall then be produced. The Government servant may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 15 WP-9940-2022 witnesses produced by the Government servant shall then be examined and shall be liable to cross-
examination, re-examination and examination by the inquiring authority according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for the disciplinary authority. (18)The inquiring authority may, after the Government servant closes his case, and shall, if the Government servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
(19)The inquiring authority may, after the completion of the production of evidence, hear the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed, and the Government servant or permit them to file written briefs of their respective case, if they so desire.
(20)If the Government servant to whom a copy of the articles of charge has been delivered, does not submit the written statement of defence on or before the date specified for the purpose or does not appear in person before the inquiring authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this rule, the inquiring authority may hold the inquiry ex-parte. (21) (a)Where a disciplinary authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 (but not competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10); has itself inquired into or the articles of any charge and that authority, having regard to its own finding or having regard to its decision on any of the findings of any inquiring authority appointed by it, is of opinion that the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 should be imposed on the Government servant, that authority shall forward the records of the inquiry to such disciplinary authority as is competent to impose the last mentioned penalties.
(b)The disciplinary authority to which the records are so forwarded may act on the evidence on the record or may, if it is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses if necessary in the interests of justice, recall the witness and examine, cross-examine and re- examine the witness and may impose on the Government servant such penalty as it may deem fit in accordance with these rules.
(22)Whenever any inquiring authority, after haying heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is succeeded by another inquiring authority which has, and which exercises, such jurisdiction, the inquiring authority so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by its Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 16 WP-9940-2022 predecessor, or partly recorded by itself :Provided that if the succeeding inquiring authority is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interest of justice, it may recall, examine, cross-examine and re-examine any such witnesses as hereinbefore provided.
(23) (i)After the conclusion of the inquiry, a report shall be prepared and it shall contain-
(a)the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconducts or misbehaviour;
(b)the defence of the Government servant in respect of each articles of charge;
(c)an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge; and
(d)the finding on each article of charge and the reasons therefor.
Explanation. - If in the opinion of the inquiring authority the proceedings of the inquiry establish an article of charge different from the original articles of the charge, it may record its finding on such article of charge :Provided that the finding on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the Government servant has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge.
(ii)The inquiring authority where it is not itself the disciplinary authority, shall forward to the disciplinary authority the records of inquiry which shall include-
(a)the report prepared by it under clause (i);
(b)the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the Government servant;
(c)the oral and documentary evidence produced in the course of the inquiry;
(d)written briefs, if any, filed by the Presenting Officer or the Government servant or both during the course of inquiry; and
(e)the orders, if any, made by the disciplinary authority and the inquiring authority in regard to the inquiry."
18. Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966 being mandatory and requires a right to be provided to appoint a defence assistant in support of his case but that has not been done in the present case. The aforesaid aspect was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deenbandhu Saket Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others decided on 14/12/2021 in Writ Petition No.22576/2021, wherein it has been held as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 17 WP-9940-2022 "4. To take assistance of defence assistant, is a statutory right of delinquent employee, as per the provisions of Rule 14 of M.P. Civil C.C.A.Rules. The relevant provisions of the said rule are reproduced as below:-
"The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to present the case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits.""
19. Another ground which is taken is that there is no application of mind by the enquiry officer. He has merely relied upon the preliminary enquiry report submitted before him and without following the rules contemplated under Rules 1966, the departmental enquiry was concluded. The enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority were required to apply their mind prior to imposing any punishment in terms of the settled legal proposition of law. The enquiry officer cannot rely upon the preliminary enquiry report. He has to prove the charges levied against the petitioner by leading cogent evidence.
2 0 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Vallikumari (supra) has held as under:-
"19. In his order, the Chairman of the Managing Committee did refer to the allegations levelled against the appellant and representation submitted by her in the light of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, but without even adverting to the contents of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 18 WP-9940-2022 her representation and giving a semblance of indication of application of mind in the context of Rule 120(1)(d )(iv) of the Rules, he directed her removal from service. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order of punishment was passed by the Chairman without complying with the mandate of the relevant statutory rule and the principles of natural justice. 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 recognised facets of the rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the authority concerned."
2 1 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala (supra) has held as under:-
"45. In view of the above, it is evident that the evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not given. Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice."
22. It is not in dispute that none of the departmental witnesses were examined in the case. The prosecution has failed to prove any witness in support of the charges levied against the petitioner. It is further not disputed by the State counsel that the defence assistant was not provided to the petitioner. He was not provided any opportunity to lead defence evidence.
23. Thus, it is clear that the enquiry report has been submitted without application of mind by the enquiry officer coupled with the fact that none of the witnesses were examined by the department to prove the charges against Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 19 WP-9940-2022 the petitioner. This clearly goes to show that the enquiry is not being conducted in a proper manner and it is being conducted in violation of Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules, 1966.
24. Another ground which is taken by the petitioner is that though the PSC has been consulted into the matter but the opinion of MPPSC has not been supplied to the petitioner prior to imposition of punishment upon the petitioner.
25. Learned State counsel, who is in possession of the records, has fairly admitted the aforesaid fact and submitted that the opinion of MPPSC was not supplied to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Kapoor (supra) has held as under:-
"5. It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is to be relied upon in departmental proceedings, a copy of the same must be supplied in advance to the charge- sheeted employee so that he may have a chance to rebut the same.
6. Mr Qadri, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the copy of the report of the Union Public Service Commission was supplied to the respondent employee along with the dismissal order. He submitted that this is valid in view of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. T.V. Patel [(2007) 4 SCC 785 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 98]. We do not agree.
7. In the aforesaid decision, it has been observed in SCC para 25 that "the provisions of Article 320(3)( c) of the Constitution of India are not mandatory". We are of the opinion that although Article 320(3)( c) is not mandatory, if the authorities do consult the Union Public Service Commission and rely on the report of the Commission for taking disciplinary action, then the principles of natural justice require that a copy of the report must be supplied in advance to the employee Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 20 WP-9940-2022 concerned so that he may have an opportunity of rebuttal. Thus, in our view, the aforesaid decision in T.V. Patel case [(2007) 4 SCC 785 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 98] is clearly distinguishable.
8. There may be a case where the report of the Union Public Service Commission is not relied upon by the disciplinary authority and in that case it is certainly not necessary to supply a copy of the same to the employee concerned. However, if it is relied upon, then a copy of the same must be supplied in advance to the employee concerned, otherwise, there will be violation of the principles of natural justice. This is also the view taken by this Court in S.N. Narula v. Union of India [(2011) 4 SCC 591]."
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.P. Singh (supra) has held as under:-
"12. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the submission of Mr W.A. Qadri that the decision in S.N. Narula case [S.N. Narula v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 591 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 727] is not an authority because the Tribunal had set aside the order of the disciplinary authority on the ground that it was a non-speaking order. Be that as it may, when the issue was raised before this Court and there has been an advertence to the same, we are unable to accept the submission of Mr Qadri. The said decision in S.N. Narula case [S.N. Narula v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 591 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 727] is an authority for the proposition that the advice of UPSC, if sought and accepted, the same, regard being had to the principles of natural justice, is to be communicated before imposition of punishment."
28. The record further indicates that after completion of the enquiry and submission of the enquiry report to the disciplinary Authority, no action was taken for a considerable period of two years and after two years, a show Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 21 WP-9940-2022 cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking a reply to be submitted to the enquiry report. Again, the Authorities have kept quiet for a period of two years and have not passed any order thereafter. The said time period taken by the Authorities in passing the impugned order is not explained either by the disciplinary Authority or by the enquiry officer at any point of time. No explanation is given in the return submitted by the Authorities.
2 9 . Under these circumstances and taking note of all the aforesaid grounds, the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. The Authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner will also be entitled for backwages and all other consequential benefits. The arrears be calculated by the Authorities and paid to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
3 0 . Before parting with the matter, it is observed that the young counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued the matter to the best of her ability, well prepared with facts and law, therefore deserves a word of appreciation from the Court regarding her preparation of case and the manner in which the arguments were addressed before the Court.
31. With aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Shbhnkr Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 22 WP-9940-2022 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53