Dharmendra Domle vs State of M.P.

Krishn Kumar Lahoti, J.—This order shall decide Writ Appeal 454/2012, Writ Appeal 456/2012 & Writ Appeal 457/2012. Firstly, we would like to decide Writ Appeal No. 454/2012 in which a substantial punishment of dismissal from service has been awarded to the appellant. This appeal is directed against an order dated 6.3.2012 passed by Single Bench in Writ Petition No. 6675/2007(S) by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against the order of punishment of dismissal from service dated 25.5.2006 by the District & Sessions Judge, Katni was dismissed. This order has been assailed by the appellant on following grounds:-

(1) The learned Single Judge has not considered crucial issue in the matter that the star witness D.R. Rahul, the then 2nd Additional District Judge Murwara, Katni was not examined in the departmental proceedings.

(2) Two show cause notices were issued to the appellant; first for compulsory retirement and second for dismissal from service. There was no occasion for the disciplinary authority to change his mind after issuing first show cause notice for the punishment of compulsory retirement.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that on these grounds, these appeals may be admitted for hearing. He has relied upon two judgments of the Apex Court in support of his contention, namely, The State of Punjab Vs. Dewan Chuni Lal, and Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Others,

We have examined the case on merits. Appellant was a Stenographer in the Court of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Katni. He was issued with a charge-sheet on 20.4.2001 that he had interpolated an order-sheet of the Court by writing "order of status-quo is hereby vacated". The allegation against the appellant was that this line was inserted by the appellant unauthorizedly in the order-sheet dated 4.5.2000 in Civil Suit No. 32-A/2000 (Anand Kumar Vs. Alfred) of the 2nd Additional District Judge, A departmental enquiry was conducted against the appellant in which various witnesses were examined but D.R. Rahul, the then 2nd Additional District Judge Murwara, Katni could not be examined as at that time he was compulsorily retired from service by the High Court. The Inquiry Officer had recorded a finding that the aforesaid interpolation was made by the appellant and after serving an enquiry report, first show cause notice and thereafter second show cause notice, appellant was dismissed from service.

This order was assailed by the appellant before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 6675/2/007(S). The learned Single Judge considered the case elaborately by the impugned order dated 6.3.2012 but dismissed the writ petition and hence, present appeal.

So far as first contention of appellant that the star witness D.R. Rahul the then ADJ Murwara, Katni was not examined is concerned, there is finding by the Inquiry Officer that such interpolation was made by the appellant, merely because D.R. Rahul at the relevant time was Presiding Officer of the Court of which order-sheet was interpolated was not examined, could not be a ground for discharge of the appellant from the charge if other evidence was available on record.

From perusal of the Enquiry Report, it is apparent that the aforesaid factum was proved by the other witnesses. There was cogent reason for non-examination of D.R. Rahul, the then Additional District Judge Murwara, Katni, who was compulsorily retired from service by the High Court at the relevant time.

Apart from this, appellant herein had made an application before the Inquiry Officer for summoning D.R. Rahul and for a period of two years, the proceedings were remained pending awaiting examination of D.R. Rahul and subsequently the appellant had withdrawn his request for examination of D.R. Rahul.

In view of the aforesaid fact, which has been specifically recorded by the Single Bench in Paragraph 18 of his order, the first contention has no force and is hereby rejected.

So far as second contention of appellant that initially a show cause notice proposing punishment of compulsory retirement was issued to the appellant but subsequently without any reason, another show cause notice was issued to him for dismissal from service is concerned, if the Disciplinary Authority considering the seriousness of the charge relating to interpolation of the Court order-sheet, issued a second show cause notice, no jurisdictional error is found in the aforesaid act. Act of appellant was very serious in nature. Order-sheets of the Courts are sacrosanct in which if any interpolation is made by the appellant then it was a case of severe punishment. In aforesaid circumstances, if after issuing of second show cause notice, appellant was awarded the aforesaid punishment then no fault is found.

So far as judgments relied on by learned counsel for appellant are concerned; in Dewan Chuni Lal (supra), it was a case of non-examination of a witness and because of this, it was held that a reasonable opportunity was denied to the delinquent officer but in the present case, the factual position is entirely different. D.R. Rahul though was a witness in the enquiry but because of his compulsory retirement by the High Court, if the department had not examined him but thereafter the same opportunity was allowed to the appellant for a period of two years, the appellant thereafter made a request for closure of evidence and the aforesaid right was closed then appellant now cannot agitate that D.R. Rahul was not examined. Departmental proceedings are fact finding proceedings and are not criminal proceedings in which charge is required to be proved beyond doubt. In the departmental enquiry, the charge was proved so merely because of non-examination of such witness, appellant cannot be exonerated. In Hardwari Lal (supra) it was a case of non-examination of complainant.

As discussed hereinabove, non-examination of D.R. Rahul was not fatal in the matter. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Writ Appeal No. 454/2012 is accordingly dismissed at admission stage.

Now we may consider Writ Appeal No. 456/2012 and Writ Appeal No. 457/2012. In these appeals, question involved is of non-consideration of writ petition on merits by the Single Bench because of passing of order in Writ Petition No. 6675/2007 (S) is involved. It appears that three enquiries were initiated against the appellant. In one enquiry, appellant was awarded punishment of dismissal from service and in two other enquiries, no punishment was awarded because a major punishment of dismissal from service was awarded to the appellant in the first case. The Single Judge also considered this aspect and had found that once a major punishment of dismissal from service was already awarded to the appellant, there was no question of proceeding further in two other enquiries. The aforesaid order appears to be just and proper. However, it is observed that in case the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 454/2012 in which appellant has been awarded a major punishment of dismissal from service is set aside by any higher forum, then Disciplinary Authority shall be free to proceed with the enquiries in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty, Writ Appeal No. 456/2012 and Writ Appeal No. 457/2012 are also disposed of finally.

No order as to costs.