AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 19.4.2017 by which he has been removed from service and order dated 24.10.2017 whereby respondent No.1 being appellate authority has dismissed the appeal.
Facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as under :
The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector on 9.10.1997 in Indore Municipal Corporation. By order dated 4.1.2016, he was placed under suspension for the charges of dereliction in duties, etc. Thereafter, he was served with charge-sheet dated 11.2.2016 levelling three charges against him. He submitted the reply to the charge-sheet denying all the allegations. Being dissatisfied with the reply, the disciplinary authority appointed Dy. Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation as an Enquiry Officer. He participated in the enquiry and thereafter, Enquiry Officer submitted its enquiry report on 8.7.2017 in which, charge No.1 was found partially proved, charge No.2 was found fully proved and charge No.3 was found partially proved. Petitioner was served with second show-cause notice along with copy of the enquiry report by the disciplinary authority on 6.8.2016. Petitioner submitted a detailed objection to the enquiry report on 22.8.2016. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.4.2017, he has been removed from service by way of major punishment under the provisions of Rule 10 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter, for short, "CCA Rules").
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of removal from service, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) Indore, who vide order dated 24.10.2017, has dismissed it, hence the present petition before this Court.
After notice, respondents have filed the return by submitting that the petitioner was assigned the work of collection of taxes from 44 shops situated in Vallabh Nagar Market, Indore. He could recovered the amount only from 7 shop owners and sealed 8 shops. He was careless in discharging his duties, he left the office after signing the attendance register without informing the higher authorities, he switched off the Motorola wireless set in order to avoid the instructions of higher officials. All the charges have been found proved against him in the departmental enquiry, therefore, he was rightly removed from service. The appellate authority has also considered the appeal on merit and dismissed the same.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.
Shri R.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the charges have not been fully proved against the petitioner and he has been dismissed from service only on the ground that he was absent on one day i.e. on 21.12.2015. From the best of his ability, he recovered the amount of Rs.88,558/- and sealed 9 shops and he was making efforts to recover the dues from the other shop owners. On 21.12.2015, he became sick and left the premises for treatment of his eye. So far as allegation of switching off the Motorola wireless set is concerned, the said wireless set was not functioning properly and said information was given to the Control Room of Indore Municipal Corporation. He further submitted that the petitioner had 22 years' unblemished service, his two daughters are studying in the Medical College and at this advanced age, he has been removed from service when he is having liability to educate and marry his daughters. The punishment is highly excessive and harsh as compared to the charges levelled against him. In support of his above contentions, he has placed reliance over the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar V/s. Union of India : (2012) 3 SCC 178 and judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Singh Jat V/s. State of M.P. (W.P. No.4629/2005 decided on 20.6.2013).
On the other hand, Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Indore Municipal Corporation, urged that the scope of writ petition in respect of interference in the disciplinary matter is very limited. Before imposing the order of punishment, ample opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The departmental enquiry was conducted under the provisions of CCA Rules. The disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority applied its mind and passed the order of removal from service. The disciplinary proceedings are subjected to judicial scrutiny only in case of perversity and breach of principles of natural justice, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector on 9.10.1997 in Indore Municipal Corporation. He was served with suspension order and thereafter, charge-sheet dated 11.2.2016 was served upon him. The charges levelled against the petitioner are as under :
"आरोप क्रमांक 1 : पदीय दायित्वों एवं कर्तव्यों का निर्वहन नहीं करते हुए विभागीय अधिकारी द्वारा सौंपे गये कार्य वल्लभ मार्केट में निगम आधिपत्य की दुकानों का सर्वे एवं बकाया वसूली नहीं करने एवं निगम को हानि पहुचाने का आरोप।
आरोप क्रमांक 2 : उपस्थिति पंजी पर दिनांक 21.12.2015 से हस्ताक्षर कर बगैर सूचना के कार्यालय से गायब रहने, कार्य के प्रति लापरवाही एवं उदासीनता बरतने का अरोप।
आरोप क्रमांक 3 : मोटोरोला एवं मोबाईल बंद रखने से निगम द्वारा सौंपे गये कार्यो का संपादन समय पर नहीं करने एवं आवश्यक निर्देश प्राप्त नहीं करने, वरिष्ठ अधिकारियों के आदेश की अवेहलना करने का आरोप।"
As per charge No.1, allegation is that the petitioner did not discharge his duties and responsibilities for recovery of dues from the shop owners in Vallabh Market. According to petitioner, he was given a letter dated 15.12.2016 to recover the dues from the shop owners where the dues are more than Rs.10,000/-. There are 49 shops in the Vallabh Market and out of which, there was no recovery of dues in respect of 12 shops, one shop is occupied for Jim and in one shop, there is religious place and one shop is vacant. There was total recovery of Rs.13,75,836/- from remaining 29 shops, out of which he recovered amount of Rs.88,558/- and sealed 9 shops and the recovery of remaining dues was in progress. From charge No.1, it was not clear as to within how much period the amount of Rs. 13,75,836/- was to be recovered. Petitioner started the process of recovery from 18.12.2015 and he was placed under suspension on 4.1.2016, therefore, in absence of any specific period given to him for the said recovery, it cannot be said that the petitioner was negligent in performing his duties. The Enquiry Officer has also observed that the petitioner was directed to take action on 15.12.2016 and up to 18.12.2015, he recovered the amount of Rs.88,558/- from the shop owners and sealed 9 shops and thereafter, on 4.1.2016, note-sheet was issued placing him under suspension. Therefore, charge No.1 has wrongly been found partially proved against the petitioner.
So far as charge No.2 is concerned, according to petitioner, he undergone eye-surgery and on 21.12.2015 after marking attendance, he went for follow up treatment to Doctor. He has 20 years unblemished service, therefore, for absence of half day, the punishment of removal from service is highly excessive and disproportionate to the charge.
So far as charge No.3 is concerned, it is alleged that the petitioner switched off his wireless set so as to avoid the instructions of higher officials, according to the petitioner, said wireless set was not functioning properly and the information in this regard was given to the Control Room of Indore Municipal Corporation. As per finding given in the enquiry report, the petitioner ought to have brought this fact to the Department, hence the charge is partially proved. For this charge also, this Court is of the considered opinion that the punishment of removal from service is highly excessive and disproportionate to the charge.
It is not the case of respondents that the past service record of the petitioner is not clean and blemished. Therefore, for the solitary incident of 21.12.2015 and the allegation of switching off of wireless set, the punishment of removal from service is highly disproportionate.
The disciplinary authority has also passed a non-speaking order. He has recorded only the allegations against the petitioner and the reply submitted by him and concluded in three lines that the reply is not satisfactory and convincing. It has been held that there is no improvement of working of the petitioner, whereas there is no other adverse material except the impugned charge-sheet in his 20 years of service, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no improvement in working of the petitioner.
Similarly, the appellate authority has failed to consider the above aspect of the matter that for solitary ground of half day's absence without permission and switching off of the wireless set, the punishment of removal from service has been affirmed.
Resultantly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed and impugned order dated 19.4.2017 removing the petitioner from service and the appellate order dated 24.10.2017 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, both are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with 25% back-wages.
With the aforesaid, the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to award minor punishment viz. other than removal/dismissal from service and compulsory retirement, in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.