Bhanu Pratap Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

In this appeal under section 2(1) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005, challenge is made to an order dated 23-11-2005, passed by the writ court in W.P.No. 3111/94.

Fact in brief goes to show that appellant Bhanu Pratap Singh was working as a Revenue Inspector, on account of certain misconduct said to have been committed, a charge sheet dated 07-05-1990 was issued to him. In the charge sheet 8 allegations of misconduct were impugned. The departmental inquiry was conducted and based on the finding of guilt recorded in the departmental inquiry vide order dated 20-01-13 he was reverted to the post of Revenue Sub Inspector. Challenging the reversion, writ petition was filed and the same having been dismissed, this writ appeal has been filed.

Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant took us through the allegations contained in the charge sheet dated 07-05-90 and argued that the charge sheet has been issued under the provisions of M.P. Nagar Palika Service (Executive) Rules, 1975, the said rule does not apply to the appellant, it is said that appellant''s services are governed by a totally different set of rules namely the Rules of 1973 and as the impugned action is taken contrary to the rules, the first ground is that the entire action stands vitiated. Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter took us through the charge sheet and argued that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer is perverse, the charges are not proved and even the allegations in the charge sheet are not correct. He tried to emphasize that the appellant has not committed any misconduct. He thereafter submitted that in the departmental inquiry, relevant documents were not produced and in the absence of the documents the appellant could not defend himself in the inquiry. It was thereafter argued that the appeal and other objections raised were neither considered or decided by the appellate authority and without taking note of the objection, the impugned action is taken. Taking us through the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant tried to argued that illegal action has been taken against the appellant.

Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 refuted the aforesaid and read the entire order of the learned Single Judge to say that the writ court having decided the matter in accordance with law, no interference is called for.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Even though Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant tried to argue that Rules of 1975 are not applicable and the appellants services are governed by the Rules of 1968. Surprisingly, neither the rules nor the provision of rules are cited before us or brought to the notice of this court to show as to how the aforesaid contention is correct. The only reference made in this regard is to page no. 131 of the paper book which is the synopsis of the written arguments. That apart the order passed goes to show that such question is never raised before the writ court. However, while considering the appeal, the State Government has gone into this question and found that the same will not vitiate the departmental inquiry into the serious allegations as all the principles of natural justice have been followed. It is held by the appellate authority that mere wrong application of the rule will not vitiate the inquiry when all the requirement of natural justice is absolute. In view of the aforesaid, finding recorded and the grounds analysand by us, we see no reason to interfere on the first ground.

As far as second ground is concerned, except for contending that the documents relevant were not produced neither the particulars of the documents are indicated nor any prejudice caused demonstrated in the matter of non production of the documents. The writ court has gone into this question and found that by making vague statement that the documents have not been produced, interference cannot be made until and unless prejudice as caused due to non production of the documents is not established and demonstrated. This principles followed by the writ court is in accordance to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and others Vs. S.K. Sharma, , and U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. P.C. Chaturvedi and Others, . Accordingly, there is no substance in this ground also.

As far as the contention of the appellant that the appellate authority has decided the appeal without application of mind is concerned, we have gone through the order passed by the State Government as contained at page no. 134 dated 03-08-1994 and found that the State Government has analyzed the matter in detailed and has passed the detailed order. If all the facts are taken note of, it would be seen that 8 allegations of charges are levelled against the appellant, they pertain to imposition and increase of tax under the signature of the appellant by keeping senior officer in dark, making illegal demand under his signature without authority of the senior officer, payment of wages under the signature of the appellant in the name of spurious person , taking of private vehicle from Panna to Jabalpur unauthorizedly manner without permission of the competent authority, retaining some regular or contingency employees in his personal capacity without approval of the competent authority, seeking advance for vehicle loan without clearing earlier loan granted. All these charges are found to be proved and based on a properly conducted departmental inquiry the impugned action is taken. Except for making vague allegation that the inquiry has not been properly conducted no specific instance of irregularities or statutory violation in the conducting of the departmental inquiry is shown during the course of hearing, We find that all the questions have been considered by the writ court and finally imposition of penalty to be preceded by a properly conducted inquiry wherein guilty against the appellant is recorded, the writ petition is dismissed.

Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere, this writ appeal stands dismissed.