AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.2016 (Annexure P/8) by which the punishment of stoppage of
one increment with non cumulative effect was imposed and also against the order dated 12.08.2016 by which the appeal has been dismissed.
[2] At the relevant time, the petitioner was working on the post of Sub Engineer and posted in the Office of Ground Water Survey Unit No.1, District
Ujjain. By order dated 08.08.2014 he was placed under suspension on the basis of some allegations in respect of substandard work carried out during
Simhastha 2016 near Kshipra River. Thereafter the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 05.09.2014 along with M.L.Kumawat,
Assistant Engineer; B.S.Saktawat, Sub Engineer and Smt. Saeda Mirza, Assistant Engineer. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet. Being
dissatisfied with his reply, the Disciplinary Authority decided to initiate regular Departmental Enquiry against him by appointing Enquiry Officer and
Presenting Officer. The petitioner participated in the Departmental Enquiry and thereafter the Enquiry Officer Shri N.N.Gandhi, Sub Engineer, WRD,
Indore submitted the Enquiry Report dated 18.02.2016. In the Enquiry Report, the petitioner has been completely exonerated from the singular charge.
The Enquiry Report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority who issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and other three delinquents. The
petitioner submitted formal reply and prayed for his discharge. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 18.02.2016 has disagreed with the findings
of Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment with non cumulative effect.
[3] Being aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Government and by order dated 12.08.2016 the
appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by a non speaking order. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
[4] After notice, the Respondents filed the reply by submitting that the Disciplinary Authority is having right under sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the M. P.
Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 [in brief “the Rules,1966â€] to disagree with the findings of Enquiry report and grant
the punishment. The Enquiry Officer has wrongly exonerated the petitioner as the petitioner was deputed for the work in question which was found
substandard, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly disagreed with the report and awarded the punishment. The appellate authority has
confirmed the same and no interference is called for in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
[5] Thereafter the petitioner filed the rejoinder by submitting that higher authorities, who appeared in the Departmental Enquiry, have admitted that the
petitioner was not deputed in the work of construction of Prashantidham Ghat at Kshipra River. The Respondents have never produced and submitted
any document before the Departmental Enquiry which is filed as Annexure R/1 along with the reply. The Respondent No.2 had already issued aletter
dated 03.12.2013 to the effect that no Sub Engineer be deployed on Simhastha works in Ujjain. The Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer
have no power and authority to deploy the petitioner. Therefore, no charge is made out against the petitioner and he is liable to be exonerated
honorary.
[6] I have heard Shri V.K.Patwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amit Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.
[7] The charge against the petitioner is as under :-
“tc vki fnukad 05-07-2011 ls fnukad 08-08-2014 rd mi;a=h] dk;kZy; vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh] flagLFk] ty lalk/ku mTtSu esa inLFk gksdj flagLFk
2016 ds varxZr f{kizk unh ds iwohZ ¼nka;s½ fdukjs ij iz'kakfr/kke ?kkV fuekZ.k dk;Z ds izHkkjh Fks] mDr vof/k esa vkids }kjk dh xbZ
vfu;ferrkvksa gsrq vkids fo:) vf/kjksfir vkjksi dk vfHkdFku fuEukuqlkj gS %&
vfHkdFku Øekad & ¼1½     Â
izeq[k vfHk;ark] ty lalk/ku foHkkx ds vkns'k Ø- 3481213@2013
fn- 08-07-14 }kjk Jh ,-ds-feJk] v/kh{k.k ;a=h ¼o`gn½ dk;kZy; izeq[k vfHk;ark] ty lalk/ku foHkkx] Hkksiky dksÂ
flagLFk 2016 ds dk;ksZ dk fujh{k.k dj dk;Zokj fujh{k.k izfrosnu izLrqr djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA vuqikyuÂ
esa fujh{k.kdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk mDr dk;ksZ dk fujh{k.k fnukad 16-07-14 dks dj izfrosnu izLrqr fd;k x;kA fujh{k.kdrkZ vf/kdkjh
}kjk flagLFk 2016 ds varxZr& f{kizk unh ds iwohZ ¼nka;s½ fdukjs ij iz'kkafr/kke ?kkV dk fuekZ.k dk;Z ¼yackbZ 90 ehVj] iqujhf{kr
yEckbZ 60 ehVj½ tks vkids izHkkj esa Fkk] esa dkWaØhV dk;Z dh xq.koRrk fuEu dksfV dh ik;h xbZ rFkk fujh{k.k esa ewY;kadu crkSj 10 esa ls
3 uEcj fn, x,A Li""V gS fd vkids }kjk inh; nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu esa f'kfFkyrk cjrrs gq, foHkkxh; ekudks ds forjhr xq.koRrkfoghu fuekZ.k
dk;Z djk;k x;kA †Â
[8] The sole defence of the petitioner was that he was posted as Sub Engineer in the Office of Sub Divisional Officer, Simhastha Sub Division from
05.07.2011 to 08.08.2014. By order dated 13.02.2013 the Executive Engineer has temporarily deputed him to supervise the work of construction of
Bihariya Bairaj. Thereafter the Executive Engineer vide order dated 11.09.2013 has deputed him to assist the Land Acquisition Officer in land
acquisition matter. The Principal Secretary of WRD vide order dated 30.11.2013 had issued a specific direction that no Sub Engineer be posted in
construction work in Simhastha area. Before the Enquiry Officer, Shri P.S.Baghel, the then Superintending Engineer and Shri R.S.Mandloi, the then
Executive Engineer appeared as a departmental witnesses and have categorically stated that the petitioner was not deputed in the construction work
of Prashantidham Ghat at Kshipra River. On the basis of this, the Enquiry Officer has recorded a specific finding that the petitioner was not allotted
the work of construction of Prashantidham Ghat at Kshipra River and the charge is not proved against him.
[9] Rule 15 of the Rules 1966 gives power to disagree with the finding of inquiring authority of any article of charge and record its reasons for such
disagreement and record its own finding on such charge, if the evidence is sufficient for the purpose. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Rules 1966 is
reproduced below :-
“15. Action on the inquiry report.- (1) … … …
(2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such
disagreement and record its own finding on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.â€
[10] The Disciplinary Authority may disagree with the findings and record its own finding subject to availability of evidence on record sufficient for the
purpose. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to discuss the material available on record while recording his disagreement with
the finding of Enquiry Report. The Disciplinary Authority has disagree by recording the finding by observing that the Inspection Officer during his
inspection had found petitioner on the place of construction which points out his involvement in the construction work. No such inspection report has
been produced before the Enquiry Officer. On the contrary the petitioner filed the document before the Enquiry Officer to establish that he was
deputed for the construction work of Bihariya Bairaj and thereafter he was deputed to assist the Land Acquisition Officer in land acquisition cases.
[11] The Superintending Engineer and the then Executive Engineer both have categorically stated before the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was
not deputed in the construction work of Prashantidham Ghat at Kshipra River. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority without any sufficient evidence
on record has wrongly recorded its finding that the petitioner was involved in the alleged construction work. Hence, the impugned punishment is liable
to be set-aside.
[12] So far as the consideration of the appeal by the appellate authority is concerned, he was obliged to decide the appeal after appreciating the facts
and grounds raised in the appeal. But in the present case the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without recording any reasons. In the case
of Maya Devi v/s Raj Kumari Batra [(2010) 9 SCC 486], the Apex Court has held that the appellate Court or the authority ought to have the
advantage of examining the reasons that prevailed making such order. Para 21 to 30 of the judgment are reproduced below :-
“21. That brings us to the question whether the Division Bench of the High Court committed a mistake in ignoring the fact that the Single Judge
who dismissed the first appeal filed by the judgment debtor had recorded no reasons in support of the order passed by him. It was, according to Mr.
Kapoor, necessary for the Single Judge to give reasons in support of the order made by him howsoever brief the same may have been. The absence
of any reason in the order passed by the Single Judge was, argued the learned counsel, sufficient for the Division Bench to set aside the same and
remit the matter back for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. In as much as the Division Bench ignored that legal deficiency in the order and
proceeded to decide the appeal on merits, it committed a mistake that ought to be corrected by this Court, was the only submission made by Mr.
Kapoor that merits consideration.
The juristic basis underlying the requirement that Courts and indeed all such authorities, as exercise the power to determine the rights and
obligations of individuals must give reasons in support of their orders has been examined in a long line of decisions rendered by this Court. In
Hindustan Times Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 1998 (2) SCC 242 the need to give reasons has been held to arise out of the need to minimize
chances of arbitrariness and induce clarity.
In Arun s/o Mahadeorao Damka v. Addl. Inspector General of Police & Anr. 1986 (3) SCC 696 the recording of reasons in support of the order
passed by the High Court has been held to inspire public confidence in administration of justice, and help the Apex Court to dispose of appeals filed
against such orders.
In Union of India & Ors. v. Jai Prakash Singh & Anr. 2007 (10) SCC 712, reasons were held to be live links between the mind of the decision
maker and the controversy in question as also the decision or conclusion arrived at.
In Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors. 2010 (3) SCC 732, reasons were held to be the
heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the
decision making process.
In Ram Phal v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2009 (3) SCC 258, giving of satisfactory reasons was held to be a requirement arising out of an ordinary
man's sense of justice and a healthy discipline for all those who exercise power over others.
In Director, Horticulture Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjivan Parshad 2008 (5) SCC 539, the recording of reasons was held to be indicative of application of
mind specially when the order is amenable to further avenues of challenge.
It is in the light of the above pronouncements unnecessary to say anything beyond what has been so eloquently said in support of the need to give
reasons for orders made by Courts and statutory or other authorities exercising quasi judicial functions. All that we may mention is that in a system
governed by the rule of law, there is nothing like absolute or unbridled power exercisable at the whims and fancies of the repository of such power.
There is nothing like a power without any limits or constraints. That is so even when a Court or other authority may be vested with wide discretionary
power, for even discretion has to be exercised only along well recognized and sound juristic principles with a view to promoting fairness, inducing
transparency and aiding equity.
What then are the safeguards against an arbitrary exercise of power? The first and the most effective check against any such exercise is the well
recognized legal principle that orders can be made only after due and proper application of mind. Application of mind brings reasonableness not only to
the exercise of power but to the ultimate conclusion also. Application of mind in turn is best demonstrated by disclosure of the mind. And disclosure is
best demonstrated by recording reasons in support of the order or conclusion.
Recording of reasons in cases where the order is subject to further appeal is very important from yet another angle. An appellate Court or the
authority ought to have the advantage of examining the reasons that prevailed with the Court or the authority making the order. Conversely, absence
of reasons in an appealable order deprives the appellate Court or the authority of that advantage and casts an onerous responsibility upon it to examine
and determine the question on its own. An appellate Court or authority may in a given case decline to undertake any such exercise and remit the
matter back to the lower Court or authority for a fresh and reasoned order. That, however, is not an inflexible rule, for an appellate Court may
notwithstanding the absence of reasons in support of the order under appeal before it examine the matter on merits and finally decide the same at the
appellate stage. Whether or not the appellate Court should remit the matter is discretionary with the appellate Court and would largely depend upon
the nature of the dispute, the nature and the extent of evidence that may have to be appreciated, the complexity of the issues that arise for
determination and whether remand is going to result in avoidable prolongation of the litigation between the parties. Remands are usually avoided if the
appellate Court is of the view that it will prolong the litigation.â€
[13] Therefore, in view of the above the order passed by the appellate authority is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, accordingly set-
aside.
[14] The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.