R.S. Umraiya vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard. This petition is directed against the order Annexure P-1 dated 4.10.2013 whereby the respondents have decided to conduct an enquiry as per the procedure laid down under Article 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention. It is contended that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules on 17.6.2013 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner submitted his reply on 19.7.2013 (Annexure P-4). The respondents have erred in issuing Annexure P-1 whereby they have decided to conduct a full fledged enquiry under Rule 14 of the C.C.A. Rules. It is contended that enquiry as per Rule 14 of the C.C.A. Rules cannot be conducted in a case where charge sheet is issued under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the argument advanced is devoid of merit and substance. If against the show cause notice, detailed reply is filed, it is open to the respondents to conduct the enquiry. The power is flowing from Rule 16(1) (b) and (1-a) of the C.C.A. Rules. The provision reads as under:-

Procedure for imposing minor penalties.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 10 and rule 11 shall be made except after-

(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;

(1-a) Notwithstanding anything Contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government Servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay of Stagnation Allowance and such withholding or increments of pay of Stagnation Allowance is likely to effect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government Servant or to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation allowance for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation allowance with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government Servant any such penalty.

A bare reading of the provisions of the C.C.A. Rules makes it clear that even in a case for imposition of minor penalty, it is open to the disciplinary authority to conduct the enquiry by following the procedure laid down in sub rule 3 (23) of Rule 14 of the C.C.A. Rules. This view is also taken by the Supreme Court in : (2001) 9 SCC 180 (O.K. Bharadwaj Vs. Union of India and others), which reads as under:-

While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that "withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect'' is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.

In the light of aforesaid, I am unable to agree with the contention of the petitioner that after issuance of Rule 16 show cause notice, the enquiry procedure of Rule 14 cannot be adopted. The petition is merit-less and is hereby dismissed.