Jagdish Prasad Bharadwaj vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 24.11.2005 whereby in a disciplinary proceeding his two increments are stopped without cumulative effect. The appellate order dated 14.5.2007 (Annexure P-1) is also called in question. The singular ground on which these orders are assailed is that the petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 17.8.2005 (Annexure P-3). He submitted his detailed reply (Annexure P-4) which is running in seven pages. The disciplinary authority without holding any enquiry and without dealing with the reply inflicted the impugned punishment. The appellate authority has ordered for affirming the punishment. Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi submits that when the charges were denied, it was obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to hold an enquiry.

Per contra, Shri B. Raj Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate submits that as per Rule 16 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, no enquiry needs to be conducted. It is a summary proceeding and petitioner is given reasonable opportunity to file his reply and he has submitted his objections.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The singular question involved in this matter is no more res-integra. The Apex Court in O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India and others, 2001 (9) SCC 180 opined that when the factual allegations of charge sheet 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, Recently, in W.P. 3022/2004 (Aditya Kumar Mishra Vs. State Electricity Board and others), this Court has taken the same view. Even in summary proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCA. Rules, if factual charges are specifically denied, to establish the charges it is necessary to conduct the enquiry in consonance with Rule 14 of the said rules. Thus, this case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment in O.K. Bharadwaj (supra). Resultantly, the impugned orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed further after the stage of filing of reply by the petitioner. The respondents may conduct the enquiry in accordance with law. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.