Aditya Kumar Mishra vs The M.P. State Electricity Board and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 04.02.2004 whereby punishment of recovery of Rs. 10200/- is inflicted on the petitioner along with further punishment of withholding one increment for one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner was served with show cause notice (Annexure P/2). The petitioner submitted his detailed reply (Annexure P/3) which is running in three pages. In this reply dated 24.9.2002, the petitioner not only denied allegations, he submitted his own explanation on facts. The disciplinary authority without conducting any enquiry inflicted punishment order (Annexure P/1) which is under challenge in this petition. The singular question raised is whether the punishment order without conducting any enquiry and without assigning reason is just and proper.

In my opinion, the point involved is no more res-integra. The Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India and others, 2001 (9) SCC 180 opined that when the factual allegations of chargesheet are denied by the delinquent employee, it is not proper to inflict punishment without holding any enquiry and without establishing the charges. This view is followed by this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others,

Accordingly, in my opinion, the respondents have erred in not holding enquiry despite specific denial of the charges by the petitioner. Apart from this, in the final punishment order, disciplinary authority has not assigned any reason as to why the defence put forth by the petitioner is not found trustworthy by him. The assigning of reason is the minimum requirement in quasi judicial proceedings. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Even otherwise, under Rule 16 of M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1966, assigning reason is a statutory requirement. For these cumulative reasons, impugned order dated 04.02.2004 (Annexure P/1) cannot be permitted to stand. The order is accordingly set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed further from the stage of filing of the reply by the petitioner. Further, it is 2004 matter, the liberty is reserved to the respondents to conduct a further enquiry and conclude it within 8 months subject to the petitioner co-operation failing which, the enquiry shall stand abated automatically. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.