Rajaram Ratnakar vs State of M.P.

Rajendra Menon, J.—Challenging an order passed by the Competent authority imposing minor punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect as contemplated under Rule 10 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal, this writ petition has been filed. The impugned order of punishment is Annexure P/6 dated 5.11.2005 and the order of appellate authority is Annexure P/11 dated 4.10.2006. Records indicate that petitioner was working as a Commercial Tax Inspector and was posted at Chowki Kuanrgarh in District Bhind. On various dates i.e. 8.8.2005 and 13.7.2005 it was reported on complaint received or on information otherwise received that various irregularities are being committed in the Chowki in question, illegal gratification is being taken and various other illegal activities are going on. On the basis of complaint received, a charge sheet/ show cause notice as contemplated under Rule 16(1)(a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1966 was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P/4 on 17.8.2005 and it was indicated that the acts of commission and omission indicated in the show cause notice constitutes misconduct under Rule 3 of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules and therefore, disciplinary authority proposes to impose punishment under Rule 10 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, accordingly the petitioner was directed to give his say in the matter. Petitioner submitted a detailed representation running to more than three pages and by taking various defence denied each and every allegations leveled in the charge sheet and gave his explanation/justification with regard to the conduct as indicated in the charge sheet Annexure P/4. The disciplinary authority rejected the explanation of the petitioner and imposed the punishment impugned. The appeal preferred by the petitioner having been rejected by competent authority vide Annexure P/11, petitioner is before this Court assailing the impugned action.

Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the procedure contemplated under Rule 16, the manner in which the impugned action is taken and tried to emphasized that action has been taken mechanically without application of mind and without following the mandate of the Rules, in as much as explanation and defence of the petitioner is not considered, it is rejected in a very casual manner and the findings with regard to imputation of the misconduct alleged have not been properly recorded, contending that the charges leveled are incorrect and petitioner was liable to be exonerated after considering his explanation, learned counsel prays for interference.

Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate refutes the aforesaid and points out that as various complaints were received against the petitioner and as only a minor punishment is imposed, no further indulgence into the matter is called for. By referring to the order of punishment Annexure P/6 dated 5.11.2005 and the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority in the said order, Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate tried to emphasize that as the requirement of Rule 16 has been complied with, no further interference into the matter is called for.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the record it is clear that the punishment imposed is a minor punishment as contemplated under Rule 10(4) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules and for imposing such a minor punishment the mandate of Rule 16, Discipline and Appeal Rules has to be followed. Before proceeding to consider the rival contention it would be appropriate to take note of the statutory rules and the procedure contemplated under Rule 16 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules for imposing any of the punishment specified in Clause 1 to 4 of Rule 10 and 11. It is contemplated under the rules that the government employee be informed in writing by the disciplinary authority about the proposal to take action against him and the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior on which the action is proposed to be taken should be communicated to him and thereafter a reasonable opportunity of hearing and representation is required. After the representation is received, discretion is given to the Disciplinary Authority either to proceed and hold a enquiry as contemplated under Rule 14 of Discipline and Appeal Rules or to take representation submitted by the government servant on record and thereafter record a finding of guilt with regard to each imputation or misconduct and after consulting the Public Service Commission where-ever necessary pass an order. If the procedure in this regard contemplated under sub rule 1 and 2 of Rule 16 is taken note of, it would be clear that after a show cause notice or a charge sheet under Rule 16(1)(2) is issued and the employee concerned submits its representation or defence by way of representation then recording of a finding of guilt with regard to each imputation, misconduct or misbehavior is required to be done and based on such a finding, the order of punishment with reason has to be communicated. If the procedure followed in the present case is taken note of, it would be seen that after the said show cause notice/ charge sheet Annexure P/4 dated 17.8.2005 communicating the allegations of imputation, misconduct was served on the petitioner, he submitted a defence by way of representation, Annexure P/5 refuted the allegations and gave his defence statement indicating that the allegations leveled are incorrect. Thereafter there is no recording of finding by the competent authority with regard to each imputation or misconduct as required under Rule 16(1)(d) nor is there a separate order of punishment passed as required under sub rule (2) and (7) of Rule 16. Instead an order Annexure P/6 is passed imposing the punishment. If the order Annexure P/6 is taken note of it would be seen that after indicating the issuance of show cause notice dated 17.8.2005, in para 1 to 3 the allegations of misconduct and imputation as alleged in the charge sheet dated 17.8.2005 are reproduced and thereafter in a very casual manner it is held that with regard to the aforesaid charges the representation and defence submitted by the petitioner is taken note of and the disciplinary authority holds that the allegations are proved as the explanation is not satisfactory and accordingly, punishment is imposed. I am of the considered view that the manner in which the punishment has been imposed is contrary to requirement of the rules. Rule 16 specifically contemplates that on an explanation and defence submitted by the delinquent employee, there has to be a finding with regard to each imputation/misconduct. The aforesaid statutory provision mandates that the disciplinary authority is required to consider the allegations of imputation misconduct, evaluate it in the backdrop of the explanation or defence of the employee concerned and thereafter by either accepting the explanation or rejecting by recording his findings with reasons, the disciplinary authority who is conducting the proceeding under Rule 16 is required to record a finding of guilt with regard to each of the misconduct and this can be done only after defence of an employee as made out in the representation is considered, taken note of and thereafter either reject or accept by giving cogent reason showing application of mind and consideration of the defence.

In the present case, the competent authority has not discharged its function properly. The procedure as contemplated in the statutory rules, in as much as there is no recording of finding with regard to each misconduct nor is the order of punishment passed after recording such a finding. On the contrary in a casual order rejecting the explanation without any reason and without application of mind is made.

When an employee is proceeded against and a punishment is proposed to be imposed upon him, even a minor punishment should be passed after following the procedure contemplated under Rule 16. The action of the competent authority in imposing the punishment has serious adverse consequence on the service career of an employee. Punishment imposed may have effect of denying promotion and other service benefits to the employee concerned and therefore, the legislature has provided adequate safeguard in the statutory provisions to rule out unreasonable or arbitrary action being taken. That apart, this is also the requirement of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, apart from the fact that the statutory requirement of the rule as contemplated under Rule 16(1)(d) and 16(2)(7) has not been filed. The manner in which impugned action is taken shows total non application of mind, it is a non speaking order and has been passed in a casual manner without even adverting to consider or discuss the defence of the employee concerned.

In view of the above, I am unable to upheld the impugned action. When the appeal is filed by the petitioner, appeal has also been decided in a similar fashion. The appellate authority was also required to decide the appeal after following the requirement of Rule 29 of the Appeal and Revision Rules, 1966 and thereafter pass an order. Neither is the requirement of Rule 27 followed while deciding the appeal nor is any reason given for rejecting the grounds raised by the employee in the appeal.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that as orders impugned have been passed without following the principles of law and is inconsistent to and contrary to statutory provisions, the same cannot be upheld. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Orders impugned are quashed.