Commissioner M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board and Others vs Pradeep Delwar

Heard on the question of admission. The appellants who were respondents in writ petition have filed this intra court appeal against the order of the learned single judge dated 2.2.2012, passed in W.P. No. 4425/11(S).

It is not in dispute that at the back of the respondent the inquiry report was obtained and on the basis of report (R-2/2) they proposed to impose penalty against the respondents and other similarly situated employees and, thereafter, they issue show cause notice and passed the order vide P/3. The said order was challenged by the respondents on the ground that no show cause notice has been issued, nor any enquiry has been conducted after giving show cause notice to the petitioner, the learned Authority committed an error in passing the order dated 8.9.2004, which was affirmed by the lower appellate Court on 9.5.11. This question has been dealt with in appeal by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 17 of the impugned order, which reads as under:

In the present case, looking to the nature of the allegations which have been made it was necessary to conduct the inquiry before imposing the penalty. In the reply to the show cause notice the petitioner has taken a specific stand that he is living with his family in the allotted accommodation and has not sublet the same. Action has been initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the report Annexure-R/2-2, but the said report was obtained behind the back of the petitioner. In the present proceedings, even a copy of that report was not supplied to him. No charge sheet has been supplied to him nor any inquiry has been conducted in the matter whereas to ascertain the correct factual position in the matter, an inquiry was necessary. This Court, while passing the order dated 2.2.2010 in W.P. No. 6629/2006(S) had specifically observed that before passing the impugned order holding the petitioner guilty, no Departmental Inquiry was conducted. In this back-ground it was further observed that in case the appellate authority holds that any action is required to be taken against the petitioner, the appropriate direction will be issued by the appellate authority for taking the decision in the matter only after adopting due procedure as provided under the relevant Service Rule, but the appellate authority without taking note of the said observation, dismissed the appeal.

Considering the fact that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, the issuance of notice for the purpose of penalty was nothing but a mere formality, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in setting aside the impugned order with the liberty to the appellants to take action against the respondents in accordance with law. On hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants we are of the view that there is no legal error in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge to warrant interference in this injtra Court appeal. This intra court appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.