Vidya Sagar Mishra vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, J.—By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has assailed the disciplinary proceedings Annexure P/1 dated 10.09.2003 and punishment order dated 22nd May, 2003, whereby a punishment of recovery of Rs. 66,455/- is inflicted on the petitioner with the direction that the said amount be recovered from the pension of the petitioner as per M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976. Assailing the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner has raised three points-

(i) After receiving charge sheet, the petitioner preferred a representation demanding documents on the strength of which charge sheet is issued. Said documents, despite repeated demands, were not supplied and hence principles of natural justice is violated.

(ii) The charge sheet is issued after retirement of the petitioner and same could not have been issued without sanction of the Governor.

(iii) The petitioner submitted his detailed representation against the inquiry officer''s report. In the punishment order there is no consideration of the said reply.

Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate supported the disciplinary proceedings and the order. By taking this court to various paragraphs of the return, it is contended that the principle of natural justice is duly followed and there is no scope of interference in this case.

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

My opinion, point wise is as under:

Point (i) :- The stand of the petitioner is that after receiving the charge sheet he preferred representations Annexure P/3 (undated) and Annexure P/4 dated 11.04.2000. It is contended that said documents have not been supplied. In turn, the respondents have stated that the petitioner was permitted to inspect the document by fixing a date. Petitioner could have appeared before the department for the purpose of inspection. Petitioner despite opportunity, did not turn up to inspect the document. Specific pleadings in this regard are made in para 5.4 of the return. The petitioner has not chosen to file any rejoinder to rebut these averments. Annexure P/5 also shows that the respondent has decided to permit the petitioner to inspect the documents. In absence of any rebuttal to the stand of the State or any other material in this regard, I find no reason to disbelieve the stand of the respondents. Thus, this cannot be decided in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise the petitioner has not established the prejudice caused to him in absence of supplying the said document. Mere non-supplying of document will not vitiate the enquiry unless prejudice is shown to the court. For this reason also this point is decided against the petitioner.

Point (ii) :- In this, it is contended by the petitioner that the respondent has not taken approval of the Governor before issuance of the charge sheet. Respondents in para 5.7 and 6.1 of the return have stated that the charge sheet was issued only after obtaining approval/permission from the Governor. There is no rejoinder to rebut the said contention nor their exists any material in support of petitioner''s contention. Thus, this point is also decided against the petitioner.

Point (iii) :- The enquiry officer prepared a report. The said report was served on the petitioner along with show cause notice. In turn, the petitioner submitted his reply Annexure P/10 on 16.08.2002. The punishment order is passed on 22nd May, 2003. Para 3 of the punishment order shows that petitioner''s aforesaid representation Annexure P/10 was received by the respondent. However, in the entire punishment order there is no consideration on the stand taken by the petitioner in his representation Annexure P/10.

This is settled in law that judicial review in disciplinary matter is confined to the decision making process and not on the decision. This view was taken by the Supreme Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, . The decision making process must be inconsonance with the principles of natural justice which requires that defence of the petitioner is considered before deciding the question of punishment. In other words, if against the shows cause notice representation is taken and punishment order is passed without considering said representation, issuing shows cause notice and calling the representation would be an empty formality. Thus, this order violates decision making process inasmuch as representation of the petitioner was not considered by the authority. In Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, the Apex court in para 23 opined that the order of disciplinary authority is not supported by any reason. Since the order passed by the said authority entails civil consequences, appropriate reason should have been assigned.

In the light of aforesaid, in my opinion, the punishment order is not in consonance with the principle of natural justice. As analyzed above impugned order dated 22nd May, 2003 cannot be permitted to stand. The said order is set aside. The respondent is at liberty to consider the representation against the enquiry officer''s report and pass appropriate order on it within six months. Since it is a 2003 matter, if the said liberty is not utilized within 06 months, disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner shall stand abated automatically. With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of. No Costs.