LAL MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of order dated 17th February, 1989 (Annexure A -7), by which a penalty of withholding three increments with cumulative effect and withholding promotion for next five years has been imposed on the petitioner by the State Government. Case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner was working as Ranger, a departmental enquiry was initiated by issuing a charge sheet dated 27 -4 -1981 (Annexure A -1). The charges leveled therein related to the period between 26 -12 -1977 to 6 -10 -1978. On 4 -12 -1981, the petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure A -2), denying the charges. Shri R.L. Awasthi, Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He conducted the enquiry, examined number of witnesses of prosecution as well as defence and finally an enquiry report was submitted on 24 -9 -1982 (Annexure A -3). In the said report, Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges leveled against the petitioner were not found proved and the petitioner was exonerated of the charges.

(2.) FURTHER case of the petitioner is that for four years, no further order was passed in the departmental enquiry. Then the petitioner received a telegram dated 20 -11 -1986 (Annexure A -4) requiring him to appear before the Divisional Forest Officer, Rajnandgaon on 3 -12 -1986 for departmental enquiry. After receipt of the telegram, petitioner appeared before the Authority on 3rd December, wherein his statement was recorded. Petitioner was informed by the new Enquiry Officer that he was enquiring into the same matter in relation to which enquiry report was submitted earlier on 24 -9 -1982. On 3rd, 4th & 5th December, 1986, witnesses were examined and the petitioner was compelled to cross -examine those witnesses without any preparation and legal assistance. Enquiry Officer in this manner closed the enquiry without giving the petitioner further opportunity to lead his own evidence in defence to controvert the evidence collected afresh against the petitioner. The enquiry was closed on 6 -12 -1986. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 17 -2 -1989 (Annexure A -7) has been passed imposing major penalty on the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the enquiry report prepared subsequently in the second round of enquiry was not supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order of punishment is vitiated. It has also been contended that without assigning any reason whatsoever and without commenting on first enquiry report and without appreciating the evidence recorded by the first Enquiry Officer, after 4 years, the enquiry was illegally reopened afresh. It is also contended that fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing was not afforded, resulting in violation of the Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It has also been argued that the punishment has been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority without issuance of show -cause notice and without serving or furnishing copy of enquiry report, which is violative of provisions contained in Rule 15 of the M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1966"). Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the decision of the Government to hold enquiry afresh was based on disagreement with the first enquiry report dated 24 -9 -1982 and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to give the petitioner an opportunity by communicating the reasons of disagreement before taking any decision to initiate enquiry afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to averments made in para 6 (ii) of the petition, argued that due and proper opportunity to defend against the charges were not afforded to the petitioner, which has vitiated the impugned order. It has also been argued that the de novo enquiry is not permissible under the law and in any case, the decision of the second Enquiry Officer to re -examine the witnesses without recording any opinion, is violative of the provision contained in Rule 14 (22) of the Rules of 1966. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Managing Director E.C.I.L., Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar and others : AIR 1994 SC 1074, Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra : AIR 1998 SC 2713, Haryana Financial Corporation and another v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja : 2008 AIR SCW 6055, State of U.P. and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha : 2010 AIR SCW 1077, L.I.C. of India v. Rampal Singh : 2010 AIR SCW 1900, Anirudh Dwivedi v. State Chief Commissioner, Bharat Scout and Guide : 2009 (2) MPLJ 166, Uma Nath Pandey and others v. State of U.P. and another : 2009 AIR SCW 3200, Kailash Chandra v. State of M.P. and others : 2009 (4) MPLJ 554.