AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner who is an Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department, has filed this appeal u/s 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, calling in the question certain observations made by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in para 18 of its award passed in Reference Case No. 03/2009 on 6.8.2013 and the directions issued to the State Government to look into the matter on the administrative side. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two submission. The first submission was that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, the Tribunal does not have power to make any such observation and to issue any direction in the matter of taking action against a person, it is said that the observations made by the tribunal is unsustainable, as the Tribunal can only decide the disputed claim. The second ground canvassed was that the observation was made without hearing the petitioner and in violation to principles of natural justice.
Shri S.M. Lal, learned counsel for the State refuted the aforesaid and submitted that the observations and directions issued is u/s 17(A) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, which grants inherent power to the Tribunal and submits that if any loss prima facie is found to have been caused to the State Exchequer inherent power is available to the Tribunal to make the observation and recommend for action to be taken by the State Government. Accordingly he submits, that there is no error in the observations and directions made by the Tribunal.
On perusal of the impugned award with regard to the observations made by the Tribunal, we find that certain officers have not conducted the proceedings in the matter of execution of the contract in accordance with law, as a result thereof financial loss was caused to the State Government. Considering the same, the Tribunal observed that the Engineer-in-Chief shall look into the matter and after granting an opportunity for hearing in accordance with law, action shall be taken against such officers who are responsible for the lapse. This observation is made after hearing the case at the time of adjudicating the claim made for more than 26 Lacs of rupees.
As far as the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while answering the reference u/s 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, the Tribunal is not empowered to go into any other area of adjudication, we are of the view that Section 17-A of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 gives inherent power to the Tribunal to pass such appropriate orders as it may deem fit in the interest of justice. The Tribunal can very well use its inherent power to take action against such officers who are found to have erred in the matter. In the present case, Tribunal exercised its power u/s 17-A of the Act and therefore, with regard to the first ground raised by the petitioner, we see no error in the matter.
As far as the second ground for issuing the notices for hearing is concerned, the observation made by the Tribunal are prima facie in nature, therefore, the Engineer-in-Chief was directed to look into the matter and grant an opportunity of hearing to such persons who are involved in the matter in accordance with law. That being so, as the petitioner will get an opportunity of hearing when action is taken by the Engineer-in-Chief, there is no violation of principles of natural justice and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in the matter of non grant of hearing. The action will be taken, if required, against the petitioner after giving him due opportunity of hearing. That being so, there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting reconsideration.
The appeal is therefore, dismissed.