Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munna Singh Singraha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 September, 2022
Author: Maninder S Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
ON THE 20th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 13397 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
MUNNA SINGH SINGRAHA S/O SHRI C.L.
SINGRAHA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: TRUCK DRIVER INJ FOREST
DEPARTMENT KASTAGAR DEPOT BARGANLA
DISTT. SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRABHAKAR SINGH, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOREST DEPARTMENT
MANTRALAYA (VALLABH BHAWAN) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR FOREST FOREST
DEPARTMENT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER FOREST
DEPARTMENT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER CIRCLE FOREST
DEPARTMENT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT GARG, PANEL LAWYER )
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:
"(i) To quash the impugned orders (Annexure P/1, P/2 & P/3), in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 9/24/2022 12:15:38 PM 2 interest of justice.
(ii) To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fir and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner."
The facts as put forth in the petition reflect that the petitioner herein who was working as truck driver with Forest Department, was confronted with a charge-sheet containing allegation of illegal construction of a house as well as temple on forest land. The said charge-sheet was further ensued in holding of the departmental inquiry. On conclusion of departmental inquiry, inquiry officer submitted his report which is contained as Annexure P/6 and thereafter, while taking into consideration the inquiry report, disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 29.03.2008 imposing major penalty of withholding of five increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner. The order dated 29.3.2008 was assailed by the petitioner by preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which has also been turned down vide order dated 29.3.2008. Thus assailing the order passed by disciplinary authority as well as Appellate Authority, this petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that its a case of no evidence inasmuch as a perusal of the conclusion arrived at in the inquiry report makes it unequivocally clear that the charge against the petitioner could not be proved inasmuch as according to the department's witnesses, the construction was not found on the land belonging to Department of Forest. On the contrary, the same was found at the distance of 50 meter of PWD road, which was not a forest land.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that its a case where the major penalty was issued vide order dated 29.03.2008 and charge-sheet has been issued subsequently vide covering memo dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 9/24/2022 12:15:38 PM 3 P/5). Therefore, submits that procedure which is provided for imposing major penalty under the M.P. (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 has not been followed. Thus, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is on the face of it, is non est and unsustainable inasmuch as there was complete failure on the part of the employer to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if the order impugned is placed in a juxta position with the inquiry report, the same would reflect that the order impugned has been passed in complete ignorance of the inquiry report, therefore, the order impugned deserves quashment.
Per contra, counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner herein upon issuance of charge sheet was extended ample opportunity to defend himself, however, neither the petitioner made any effort to cross-examine any of the witnesses produced by the department nor himself produced any defence witness which is evident from the perusal of inquiry report. Learned counsel while taking this Court to various paragraphs of the inquiry report, submits that it was proved that the petitioner herein constructed two rooms on the forest land and constructed a temple on a land belonging to PWD Department.
Thus in view in absence of rebuttal of the evidence adduced in support of charge, the disciplinary authority, rightly imposed the major penalty of withholding five increment with cumulative effect and therefore, the order impugned does not require any interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. Before dealing with the other issues involved in the petition, it is appropriate to deal with the petitioner's contention that Annexure P/5 which is a covering letter dated 31.10.2009, which has been issued subsequently pertains Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 9/24/2022 12:15:38 PM 4 to the impugned order of penalty or not ?
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that its a peculiar case where after imposing major penalty, subsequently a charge sheet has been issued vide Annexure P/5 dated 31.10.2009. To appreciate this argument of the counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to peruse the contents of paragraph 5.2 of the petition as well as the grounds incorporated in the memo of the petition. It is no where stated in the entire petition, that its a case where the charge sheet has been issued after imposition of the penalty. The Annexure P/5 which is appears to be a covering memo pertains to some other charge sheet subsequently. The charge sheet which was issued along with this covering memo dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure P/5), has not been brought on record by the petitioner.
Thus, it can be safely inferred that Annexure P/5 dated 31.10.2009 pertains to some other inquiry and not the inquiry in question which ensued in passing of impugned order withholding of five increments.
A perusal of the charge against the petitioner reflects that against the petitioner herein, the charge was to the effect that the petitioner constructed a house and a temple on the land which is owned by the Department of Forest. On the aforesaid charges, the evidence adduced by as many as, seven departmental witnesses and the departmental witness DW-1 stated that the sight in questioned was inspected in the presence of Shri N.L.Mahobiya and Shri B.S.Maravi, Rang Officer Bargawan and the house consisting two rooms, was found on the land belonging to the Department of Forest.
(PW-2) N.L. Mahobiya as well as (PW-4) Surendra Singh Sengar stated that there is a temple has also been constructed by the present petitioner but the said temple is not on forest land but is within 50 meter of PWD road. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 9/24/2022 12:15:38 PM 5 petitioner though was extended opportunity to cross examine the departmental witnesses, however the petitioner did not cross examine any of the witnesses. Moreover, the petitioner in his brief, admitted that he has constructed two rooms and a temple and further submitted in the brief that if upon demarcation, the property is found to be belonging to Department of Forest, the petitioner would hand over the property to the Department of Forest without any protest. A perusal of the inquiry report contained that Annexure P/1 reflect that the petitioner did not examine any of the departmental witnesses, nor adduce any evidence in support of his stand. Thus, the inquiry officer concluded that the petitioner has constructed a kachcha house on the land belonging to the Department of Forest and it is not proved that the temple is constructed on the land belonging to the Forest Department. The disciplinary authority while taking into consideration the inquiry report, and upon analysis of evidence adduced by the department, concluded that the petitioner herein, neither cross examined any of the witnesses, nor adduced evidence and moreover even the petitioner did not submit his reply to the inquiry report. Thus, the disciplinary authority having found that the charge against the petitioner as regards the construction of a kachcha house on the land owned by Department of Forest is proved, has passed the impugned order imposing major penalty of withholding five increments with cumulative effect.
In the considered view of this Court the disciplinary authority has passed a well reasoned and detailed order which commensurate with the charge levelled against the petitioner inasmuch as it is undisputed that the petitioner has failed to controvert the allegation, that he has encroached upon the government land by raising construction over it, and thus no interference is warranted.
Even otherwise, the scope of interference with the disciplinary Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 9/24/2022 12:15:38 PM 6 proceedings is limited. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 held in para 12 & 13 as under:-
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 9/24/2022 12:15:38 PM 7
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
If the orders impugned are scrutinized on the anvil of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it would revel that its not a case of no evidence, nor the petitioner has established that there was violation of any statutory provisions, hence having found no substance the petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE sm Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 9/24/2022 12:15:38 PM