Prabhu Dayal Bansal vs State of M.P. and Another

Sujoy Paul, J.—In this petition the petitioner has challenged the punishment order dated 21.05.2003, whereby punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect is inflicted on the petitioner. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 23rd July, 2004. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 13.02.2001, wherein three charges were leveled against him. On denial of charges by petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed. Charges No. 1 & 2 were not found proved against the petitioner. Charge No. 3 was found proved by the enquiry officer. Disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry officer''s report and punished the petitioner on charge No. 3 which was criticized by the petitioner on the ground that findings of charge No. 3 are perverse and based on no evidence. Even presenting officer in his brief accepted the same. In addition, it is submitted that punishment is imposed for an allegation which was not the subject matter of charge.

Shri Newaskar supported the order and submits that petitioner is leniently punished and there is no flaw in the process nor punishment is disproportionate.

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

The charge No. 3 against the petitioner is as under:-

The presenting officer in his brief gave following opinion:-

The enquiry officer with regard to this charge has given following finding:

Charge No. 3 against the petitioner was that he did overwriting in the inward/outward register in his own handwriting. On the basis of that, it is alleged that petitioner''s integrity appears to be doubtful. The presenting officer accepted that no overwriting is proved from the original record. Enquiry officer''s aforesaid finding regarding charge No. 3 shows that he has not found that there was any overwriting by the petitioner in the concern register. However, he held the petitioner guilty on the ground that petitioner has not produced any proof which shows that he has given intimation about the petitioner''s wife''s business to the department. In the opinion of this Court, this was not the charge against the petitioner. This is settled in law that an employee cannot be punished for the allegation which was not the subject matter of the charge sheet. This view was taken by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Vs. Nand Kishore Singh, which is followed by the Apex Court. In M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Apex Court opined that interference on punishment order can be made if it is based on no evidence or based on perverse finding.

In the present case, the findings are perverse and there is no evidence on record to show that petitioner has made any overwriting in the concerned register. Apart from this, suspicion, howsoever strong it may be cannot take place of proof. This view was also taken by the Supreme Court way back in Union of India (UOI) Vs. H.C. Goel, which was followed by this Court in Union of India Vs. V.P. Gidroniya, reported in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. V.K. Girdonia and Another,

On the basis of aforesaid, the punishment order as well as appellate order was totally uncalled or unwarranted. Consequently, the punishment order and the appellate orders are set aside. Petitioner be given all consequential benefits within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Petition stands allowed. No costs.