Mukhtyar Khan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

[1]This order will govern the disposal of WP No.1548/2015, WP No.2907/2015 & WP No.3255/2015 since it is jointly submitted by learned counsel for parties that all these writ petitions involve the same issue on the identical fact situation.

[2] By these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19/8/2013 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service as affirmed by the order of the appellate authority dated 30/1/2015.

[3] In WP No.1548/2015 & WP No.3255/2015, the petitioners were working as Assistant Grade II and in WP No.2907/2015 the petitioner was working as Sub Engineer. The petitioners were served with the charge sheet dated 13/1/2005 for holding the joint Departmental Enquiry along with other delinquent employees for committing misconduct. After filing of the reply, the Departmental Enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer had submitted common report dated 20th September, 2011. The petitioners were given notice along with the report and after filing of the reply the impugned order dated 19/8/2013 was passed by the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioners against the punishment order has been dismissed vide order dated 30/1/2015.

[4] Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the Enquiry Officer has not considered the evidence which was adduced before him and the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have passed the orders in mechanical manner without considering the individual case of the delinquent employee.

[5] As against this, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned orders.

[6] Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that a joint enquiry was conducted against as many as 27 Sub Engineers and Assistant Grade II including the present petitioners.

[7] The joint enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer and para 90 to 96 of the enquiry report relate to the petitioner Mukhtyar Khan in WP No.1548/2015. The enquiry officer has only considered the examination-in-chief of PW.2 P.L. Yadav and PW.3 Rajendra Kumar Bhavsar, but he has not considered the cross examination part and has simply observed that the statement has remained unrebutted. He has also not taken into account the statements of the defence witnesses.

[8] In WP No.3255/2015 discussion in respect of petitioner Heeralal  Raniwal  is  contained  from  para  97  onwards.   The discussion against this petitioner is common with another employee Latif Khan whose Writ Petition being WP No.1544/2015 has already been allowed by order dated 3/1/2019. The Enquiry Officer has not taken into account the entire evidence in proper perspective.

[9] In WP No.2907/2015 at the instance of petitioner G.S.Sheikh, it is noticed that the consideration by the enquiry officer is from para 83 to 89 in the report. The consideration is common with other delinquent employee R.K. Yadav and and A.K. Gupta. Writ Petition No.13300/2015 filed by R.K. Yadav has already been allowed by the Principal Seat vide order dated 26/7/2018 and WP No.28117/2018 filed by A.K. Gupta has been allowed by the co-ordinate bench by order dated 3/1/2019. The enquiry report reveals that there was no proper application of mind and merely on the basis of statement of witness Omprakash Sharma the charge has been found to be proved without considering the other evidence.

[10] Hence, it is clear that the enquiry report has been prepared in violation of Rule 14(23)(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966. The impugned order of punishment dated 19/8/2013 also reveals that the disciplinary authority has not considered the individual cases of the delinquent employees, but has passed one common order dismissing all the 27 employees. Similarly the appellate authority also while passing the order dated 30/1/2015 has not applied the mind in respect of the material adduced against the individual delinquent employee, but by a common order rejected most of the appeals.

[11] The principal seat in the case of Sub Engineer R.K. Yadav who was also similarly treated in the same departmental enquiry, while considering the WP No.13300/2015 vide order dated 26/7/2018 has held as under:-

"13. The petitioner has asserted that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were not in conformity with Rule 14(23) of the Rules, 1966, looking to the charges levelled against the petitioner. As per the charge-sheet (Annexure-P-4), there are 5 charges levelled against petitioner and in view of the Rule 14(23) of the Rules, 1966, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

"14(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."

the obligation cast upon the Enquiry Officer as to in what manner the enquiry report would be prepared.

As  per  the  record,  the  enquiry  report  dated 20. 09.2011 running in 147 pages and discussion about the charges levelled against the present petitioner is at page 70 where the Enquiry Officer has reproduced the charges levelled against the petitioner from page 70 to 72 and thereafter in page 136, the Enquiry Officer has dealt with the charges levelled against Shri Dilip Joshi, Sub Divisional Officer, and Shri Manoj Jodhpurkar, Shri I.K. Khan, Shri G.S. Sheikh, Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, Shri S.K. Rai, Shri A.S. Parihar and Shri R.K. Yadav, Sub-Engineers. The Enquiry Officer in paragraph-59 of the enquiry report has said that for the purpose of convenience all the charges levelled against these officers are being considered analogously to avoid reproduction of facts and thereafter in paragraph-60, the Enquiry Officer has taken shelter of the statement of department witness namely, Shri O.P. Sharma and without following the requirement of Rule 14(23) of the Rules, 1966, has observed that all the charges levelled against all these officers are found proved whereas, the statement of department witness Shri O.P. Sharma and his cross-examination has been filed by the petitioner along with the petition which runs almost in 50 pages. The Enquiry Officer, in its report has not given separate assessment of committing misconduct by the delinquent or also the defence of the government servant. The Enquiry Officer has not given any separate finding on each article of charges and reasons thereof. But, in one paragraph of the enquiry report, he has dealt with the charges levelled against 8 officers and rushed to observe that the charges have been found proved.

Looking to the statement made by the department witness Shri O.P. Sharma, it is clear that he was not very sure about the charges levelled against the persons against whom the enquiry was initiated and also charges levelled against the petitioner. It is also not clear that his statement was very specific in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Nothing specific has been alleged by him against the petitioner. Looking to the charges levelled against the petitioner, it was the duty of the Enquiry Officer to assign specific reason against each and every charges and should have given specific finding as to why the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved.

Surprisingly, the Enquiry Officer in only one paragraph of the enquiry report dealt with the charges of 8 officers and without making any specific discussion regarding each charge observed that all the charges levelled against those officers have been found proved. The enquiry is not a mere formality, therefore, in the procedure, it is specified that as to in what manner the Enquiry Officer has to proceed and in what manner he has to deal with the charges especially in cases where joint enquiry is being conducted levelling serious charges and there is every possibility that severest penalty could be imposed on the delinquent officer/employee.

In number of occasions, various Courts have observed this type of procedural flaw and found that in a matter of disciplinary enquiry when the charges are not very specific and findings are not clear in respect of each and every charge, it is not sufficient to impose the severest penalty. In the case of Swami Prasad Yadav (supra), on which the petitioner is relying upon, this Court has observed the importance of provisions of Rule 14(23) of the Rules, 1966, and has also observed that as to why the finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be sustained and cannot be made basis for inflicting punishment if requirement of such provisions is not followed.

In the present case also, when the petitioner has filed reply to the charge-sheet, denied the allegations saying that whatever work he was assigned and was performed by him, was going on since 1999 in the department and was under the instructions and supervision of the higher officers. He has also relied upon some provisions of work manual highlighting the duties of Sub- Engineers. In such circumstance, it was the duty and obligation of the Enquiry Officer to meet out the defence taken and reply given by the delinquent, by assigning specific reason in respect of each charge so that it could easily make out that the defence taken by the delinquent/petitioner had no substance.

In the case of R.K. Vishwakarma (supra), on which the petitioner has relied upon, this Court relying upon various judgments has observed that the Division Bench of Bombay High Court has tested the charges of the delinquent employee and its vagueness on the quantum of penalty. The opinion expressed by the Division Bench was that "unless there is a definite charge and conclusive of the same against the employee, the severest penalty is not to be imposed on the basis even recorded on vague charge."

It is very categorically pointed out by the petitioner that from the examination of Shri O.P. Sharma, the department witness, it can be easily made out that he had no knowledge about the subject work.

I have also perused the cross-examination of Shri O.P. Sharma and it could be seen that there is substance in the contention of the petitioner because the department witness Shri O.P. Sharma has time and again admitted that he has no knowledge about the work assigned to the delinquent/petitioner. From perusal of the statement of Shri O.P. Sharma, it is clear that he has not specifically asserted and stated against the petitioner, but he has made common statement which cannot be made basis for holding the charges proved especially in the cases where severest punishment is being imposed upon the delinquent. When a punishment of dismissal is being imposed, it is the duty of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority to make specific and indicative reason for holding charge found proved. The defence taken by the petitioner and which was clear from the reply to the charge-sheet, there is no discussion in the report as to why the said defence can be discarded. In such a situation, it is clear that the Enquiry Officer has not followed the requirement of Rule 14(23) of the Rules, 1966, and accordingly the law laid in the case of Swami Prasad Yadav (supra) is applicable in the present case.

Secondly, from the order of the disciplinary Authority it can be easily gathered that the disciplinary Authority has not applied its own mind but inflicted the punishment of dismissal only on the basis of report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The operative part of the order of the disciplinary Authority makes it clear that the said authority has not given his independent opinion and without recording its finding in respect of charges and without recording reasons for holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, passed the order inflicting severe punishment of dismissal from service. The operative part of the order of the disciplinary Authority are as under:-

"3/ आयुक्त विभागीय जॉच, मध्यप्रदेा ने विभागीय जॉच सम्पन्न कर जॉच प्रतिवेदन दिनांक 22.09.2011 को नर्मदा घाटी विकास विभाग को प्रस्तुत किया। विभागीय जॉचकर्ता अधिकारी द्वारा उपरोक्त उल्लेखित सभी अधिकारी/कर्मचारियों पर अधिरोपित आरोप सिद्ध पाते हुए इनके द्वारा छलसाधिति प्रक्रिया अपनाकर शासकीय धन का दुर्वियोजन करने का दोषी पाया। प्रकरण में कुल राा रूपये 8,10,45,978/- का दुर्विनियोजन होना प्रमाणित पाया गया।

4/ उपाध्यक्ष नर्मदा घाटी प्राधिकरण एवं प्रमुख सचिव, नर्मदा घाटी विकास विभाग द्वारा जॉच प्रतिवेदन की प्रति अपचारियों को उपलब्ध कराई जाकर लिखित अभ्यावेदन प्रस्तुत करने एवं समक्ष में पक्ष समर्थन में साक्ष्य/कथन प्रस्तुत करने का अवसर प्रदान किया गया। अपचारियों द्वारा अपने को निर्दाष बताया जाकर दोषमुक्त करने तथा निलंबन से बहाली हेतु अनुरोध किया गया। अपचारियों द्वारा जॉचकर्ता अधिकारी के समक्ष तर्कों आदि की पुनरावृत्ति की गई जिसमें कोई सार तत्व निहित नहीं पाया गया।

5/ विभागीय जॉच में उपरोक्त उल्लेखित समस्त अपचारी अधिकारी/कर्मचारियों को आर्थिक अनियमितताओं कर शासकीय धन का दुर्विनियोजन करने का दोषी पाया गया। अतः उनके विरूद्ध मध्यप्रदेा  सिविल  सेवा  (वर्गीकरण,  नियंत्रण  तथा  अपील)  नियम,  1966 के नियम-10 (9) के तहत शासकीय सेवा से पदच्युत करने संबंधी प्र ासकीय निर्णय लिया गया।"

The petitioner is relying upon an order passed by this Court in R.K. Vishwakarma (supra), in which, this Court in paragraph- 13 of the judgment has dealt with the requirement of provision of Rule 15 of Rules, 1966, and observed that the said rule makes it clear that the disciplinary Authority is required to apply his mind while recording the finding of article of charges levelled against the delinquent employee. The provision of sub-rule 3 of Rule 15, of the Rules, 1966, enables the disciplinary Authority to record its own findings on all or any of the article of charge and then to form an opinion as to which penalty under Rule 10 of the Rules, 1966, is to be imposed on the employee concerned, if the misconduct is said to be proved. Accordingly, if the order of the disciplinary Authority passed in the present case is examined, it is clear that the finding in respect of the charges were not recorded by the disciplinary Authority and only a satisfaction was recorded with respect to the conduct of the enquiry and finding given by the Enquiry Officer. Thus, I am of the opinion that the requirement of Rule 15 of Rules, 1966, has also not been complied with by the disciplinary Authority.

The appeal was also preferred under Rule 23 of Rules, 1966, raising the specific grounds. A copy of the memo of appeal is also available on record as Annexure-P-15. The appeal runs in almost 10 pages containing all possible grounds which could have been taken by the petitioner. But the order of the appellate Authority i.e. Annexure-P-14 dated 15.07.2015 further does not fulfill the requirement of Rule 27 of the Rules, 1966. The Rule 27 of the Rules, 1966, is being reproduced hereinbelow for the purpose of convenience:-

"27. Consideration of appeal.- [(1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of rule 9 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly.]

[(2)] In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 10 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rule, the appellate authority shall consider,

(a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice;

(b) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the records; and

(c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe, and pass orders -

(i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty; or

(ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case:

Provided that -

(i) the Commission shall be consulted in all cases where such consultation is necessary; [(ii) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 10 and an inquiry under rule 14 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, subject to the provisions of rule 19, itself hold such inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of rule 14 and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry, make such orders as it may deem fit.

(iii) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 10 and an inquiry under rule 14 has already been held in the case the appellate authority shall, after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed, make such order as it may deem fit].

(iv) no order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be made in any other case unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity, as far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of rule 16, of making a representation against such enhanced penalty."

In view of the above, if the order of the appellate Authority is seen, it is clear that the appellate Authority has not applied its own mind to meet out the grounds raised in the memo of appeal. But, the appellate Authority has reiterated the finding given by the Enquiry Officer and has observed to the extent that the Enquiry Officer since belonging to the judicial services, therefore, the said enquiry in any manner cannot be considered to be partial.

As far as not giving any specific reason in each and every charges by the Enquiry Officer is concerned, the disciplinary Authority has observed that it was not proper for the Enquiry Officer to record reasons in respect of each charge and for the purpose of avoiding reiteration of the evidence, the Enquiry Officer has rightly done so and submitted its proper enquiry report. The appellate Authority has also observed that the important point of the enquiry was that Shri S.N. Saxena, Executive Engineer against whom seven charges were levelled, has misused an amount of Rs.7,97,30,544/- and if the charge against Shri Saxena has been found proved then, it can be presumed that other officers working under him were also part of such misappropriation. In paragraph-10 of the order of the appellate Authority, it clearly indicates that as far as the petitioner is concerned, the appellate Authority has not independently dealt with his case but only on the basis that the charges dealt with in respect of Shri Saxena, Executive Engineer, under whom the petitioner was working, were found proved, therefore, the petitioner is rightly found equally involved in such financial irregularity. The relevant portion of the order of the appellate Authority is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"10- प्रकरण में साक्ष्य की पुनरावृत्ति से बचने एवं सुविधा की दृष्टि से सभी आरोपों पर एक साथ विचार कर जांच अधिकारी द्वारा अपना प्रतिवेदन प्रस्तुत किया गया। जिसके निष्कर्ष से स्पष्ट है कि उक्त जांच का महत्वपूर्ण विषय यह रहा है कि श्री एस.एन.सक्सेना, कार्यपालन यंत्री के प्रथम सात आरापों में कुल 79730544/- रू. की रा ा के भुगतान में असद्भावपूर्ण आय से छलसाधित प्रक्रिया अपनाकर दुर्विनियोजन किये जाने संबंधी गंभीर अनियमितताओं का आरोप रहा। जो कि अन्य अधिकारियों के ऊपर उनकी सीमा में उसी प्रकार से आरोपित है एवं संपूर्ण आरोप प्रमाणित पाये जाने के फलस्वरूप अन्य अधिकारियों की सहभागिता भी निरूपित होती है। इससे स्पष्ट है कि श्री आर.के. यादव एवं श्री नवीन मल्होत्रा भी उनके साथ सम्मिलित अन्य अधिकारियों के साथ आर्थिक अनियमितताओं के लिये दोषी होते है। उक्त दोष से वे अलग नहीं किये जा सकते। कार्यक्षेत्र में श्री यादव एवं श्री मल्होत्रा अन्य पांच अधिकारियों के साथ कार्य में सम्मिलित रहे हैं अतः विभागीय जांच अधिकारी द्वारा उन दोनों सहित कुल सात के साथ कार्य में सम्मिलित रहे हैं अतः विभागीय जांच अधिकारी द्वारा उन दोनों सहित कुल सात के संबंध में दिये गये संयुक्त निष्कर्ष को अमान्य नहीं किया जा सकता। आवेदकों को जांच प्रतिवेदन की प्रति प्रदाय की जाकर बचाव का अवसर नर्मदा घाटी विकास विभाग द्वारा दिया गया। अतः यह तर्क भी सही नहीं है कि उन्हें बचाव का कोई अवसर नहीं दिया गया।"

In view of the above finding, I find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of report of the Enquiry Officer it is clear that though he was statutorily duty bound to submit the report meeting the requirement of Rule 14(23) of the Rules, 1966. But, if the report is analyzed in backdrop of the requirement of statutory rules, it is clear that the report does not meet the aforesaid statutory requirement. As already clarified above that the Enquiry Officer has not given separate reasoning in respect of the each of the charge levelled against the petitioner who considered the charges levelled against 8 employees and without giving any separate reasoning observed that all of them have been found guilty and charges levelled against them are found proved. It is also clear from the report of the Enquiry Officer that the defence taken by the petitioner has not been properly assessed but merely saying that the defence taken is not proper, does not meet the requirement of Rule 14(23) of the Rules, 1966, especially under the circumstance when an employee has been inflicted severest punishment i.e. dismissal from service. Accordingly, the finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the petitioner is held perverse.

Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2002) 7 SCC 142, in paragraph-7 has observed as under:-

"11. The Supreme Court in the case of Sher Bahadur  (supra)  has  laid  down  the  principle which is required to be followed by an enquiry officer while recording his finding and the principle is crystallized by the Supreme Court in para 7 in the following manner:-

"7. It may be observed that the expression "sufficiency of evidence" postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. Evidence, however, voluminous it may be, which is neither relevant in a broad sense nor establishes any nexus between the alleged misconduct and the charged officer, is no evidence in law. The mere fact that the enquiry officer has noted in his report, "in view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced in the enquiry", would not in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence. Though, the disciplinary authority cited one witness Sh. R. A. Vashist, Ex. CVI/N. Rly., New Delhi, in support of the charges, he was not examined. Regarding documentary evidence, Ex. P-1, referred to in the enquiry report and adverted to by the High Court, is the order of appointment of the Appellant which is a neutral fact. The enquiry officer examined the charged officer but nothing is elicited to connect him with the charge. The statement of the Appellant recorded by the enquiry officer shows no more than his working earlier to his re-engagement during the period between May, 1978 and November, 1979 in different phases. Indeed, his statement was not relied upon by the enquiry officer. The finding of the enquiry officer that in view of the oral, documentary, and circumstantial evidence, the charge against the Appellant for securing the fraudulent appointment letter duly signed by the said APO (Const.) was proved, is, in the light of the above discussion, erroneous. In our view, this is clearly a case of finding the Appellant guilty of charge without having any evidence to link, the Appellant with the alleged misconduct. The High Court did not consider this aspect in its proper perspective as such the judgment and order of the High Court and the order of the disciplinary authority, under challenge, cannot be sustained, they are accordingly set aside."

Likewise, in a case of Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer reported in AIR 1985 SC 1121, the Apex Court in paragraph-5 and 6 has observed that the duty of the Enquiry Officer to give reasoned finding and the effect of perverse finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer without application of mind and without assigning proper reason is considered in the following manner:-

"5. We have extracted the charges framed against the appellant. We have also pointed out in clear terms the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is well-settled that a disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasi-judicial enquiry held according to the principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer has a duty to act judicially. The Enquiry Officer did not apply his mind to the evidence. Save setting out the names of the witnesses, he did not discuss the evidence. He merely recorded his ipse dixit (sic) that the charges are proved. He did not assign a single reason why the evidence produced by the appellant did not appeal to him or was considered not credit-worthy. He did not permit a peep into his mind as to why the evidence produced by the management appealed to him in preference to the evidence produced by the appellant. An enquiry report in a quasi-judicial enquiry must show the reasons for the conclusion. It cannot be an ipse dixit (sic) of the Enquiry Officer. It has to be a speaking order in the sense that the conclusion is supported by reasons. This is too well-settled to be supported by a precedent. In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1966) 1 SCR 466 : (AIR 1966 SC 671), this Court observed that a speaking order will at best be a reasonable and at its worst be atleast a plausible one. The public should not be deprived of this only safeguard. Similarly in Mahabir Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1971) 1 SCR 201 : (AIR 1970 SC 1302), this Court reiterated that satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appealed to the authority. It should all the more be so where the quasi-judicial enquiry may result in deprivation of livelihood or attach a stigma to the character. In this case the enquiry report is an order sheet which merely produces the stage through which the enquiry passed. It clearly disclosed a total non-application of mind and it is this report on which the General Manager acted in terminating the service of the appellant. There could not have been a gross case of non-application of mind and it is such an enquiry which has found favour with the Labour Court and the High Court.

Where a disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the minimum expectation is that the report must be a reasoned one. The Court then may not enter into the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. But where the evidence is annexed to an order sheet and no correlation is established between the two showing application of mind, we are constrained to observe that it is not an enquiry report at all. Therefore, there was no enquiry in this case worth the name and the order of termination based on such proceeding disclosing non-application of mind would be unsustainable."

In view of the above enunciation of law so also the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding given against the petitioner, is wholly perverse, contrary to the provisions of law and accordingly this petition is allowed. The orders impugned are hereby set aside.

In a normal course, the disciplinary Authority is given a liberty to initiate the proceeding a fresh. But, in the present case, since the charges related to year 2003 and 2004, the respondents took 9 years to conclude the enquiry and 15 years have already passed, therefore, I do not find any substance to remit the matter back to the disciplinary Authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding afresh.

However, considering the aforesaid, since there is no material placed on record as to whether the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere during the period when he remained out from service, it is directed that the petitioner be reinstated in service without back wages but granting all other consequential benefits except salary for the intervening period."

[12] The co-ordinate bench in the similar circumstances vide order dated 3/1/2019 had allowed the Writ Petitions No.2967/2015 Ramprakash Yadav Vs. State of MP & Ors, WP No.790/2014 Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal Vs. State of MP & Ors. and WP No.28117/2018 Chain Singh Rawat Vs. State of MP & Ors. which were filed by the other delinquent employees who were similarly treated as the present petitioner in the same departmental enquiry.

[13] Having regard to the aforesaid factual and legal position, the impugned order of punishment dated 19/8/2013 and the appellate order dated 30/1/2015 to the extent they relate to the petitioners are set aside.

[14] The writ petitions are accordingly allowed.

[15] The signed order be placed in the record of WP No.1548/2015 and copy whereof be placed in the record of connected Writ Petitions.