Narendra Kumar Sharma vs State of MP and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—By filing this petition the petitioner has challenged the punishment order dated 26.12.2000, whereby the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was inflicted on him. The appellate order (Annexure A/6) dated 30.5.2001 is also called in question in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 4.3.2000. It was alleged that the petitioner and a team which was constituted had jointly enhanced the numbers of failed students and, therefore, they were declared as passed. The singular contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that he alone was singled out and no action was taken against the other members of the team. He drew attention of this Court on the order passed by this Court on 4.4.2008 wherein the State prayed for time to seek instructions in respect of outcome of the enquiry conducted against the co-employees R.K. Gupta and B.S. Sikarwar. Shri Katare submits that there is no instruction received by the State and, therefore, the petitioner alone cannot be punished. In support of the contention, he relied on Bongaigaon Refinery and P.C. Ltd. and Others Vs. Girish Chandra Sarmah,

Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Deputy Government Advocate supported the action and submits that although no instructions are received, the allegations against the petitioner are very serious and are duly established against him. He cannot claim any negative parity. He submits that appellate authority has also applied its mind on every aspect raised in the appeal.

No other point was pressed by the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

A bare perusal of the show cause notice shows that very serious allegations are made against the petitioner. He was Assistant Teacher and it was alleged that in the tabulation sheet he manipulated the marks and because of that many failed students were declared as passed. Petitioner''s reply was duly considered by the disciplinary authority who passed the order running in five pages. A perusal of the said order shows that the petitioner''s involvement in the misconduct is proved beyond doubt. The petitioner has not chosen to file the appeal memo in the present proceedings. Shri Alok Katare fairly stated that he also does not have the appeal memo. Thus, the petitioner has failed to show that the ground of alleged discrimination was raised before the appellate authority. Primarily, burden is on the petitioner to show that other persons were not subjected to any enquiry or they were permitted to go scot-free. In absence of any such ground in the appeal, no fault can be found in the order of the appellate authority. Thus, the judgment in Bongaigaon Refinery (supra), in absence of pleading and establishing the discrimination, cannot be mechanically applied. Considering the gravity of the charges established, in my opinion, the petitioner is very leniently dealt with by the respondents. I find no reason to interfere in this matter. Petition is merit less and is hereby dismissed.