Veerpal Singh Kushwaha vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the resolution dated 11.12.2003 and 16.1.2004 issued by respondents No. 2 & 3. The charge sheet dated 2.1.2004 (Annexure P-9) is also called in question. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that he was placed under suspension by order dated 12.12.2003. The same was followed by charge sheet dated 2.1.2004, wherein allegation of negligence was made against the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned resolution dated 16.1.2004 was passed wherein it is concluded that petitioner is guilty of the charges and, therefore, he be inflicted with the punishment as mentioned in the Rules of 1968.

Shri Arun Dudawat, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed this action on the ground that the entire departmental enquiry becomes an empty formality when a decision has already been taken holding the petitioner as guilty and to impose a punishment on him. In addition, he submits that the petitioner erroneously initially left the name of a handicapped person namely, Kok Singh in his survey. However, immediately upon noticing the said mistake, he informed the department and on his recommendation, the benefit of grant of a tricycle was extended in favour of the said Kok Singh. He relied on Annexure P-3.

Mrs. Sangeeta Pachori, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate and Shri Pawan Dwivedi, Advocate for State and respondents No. 2 & 3 respectively supported the impugned action.

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

The petitioner is served with a charge sheet dated 2.1.2004. The allegation in the charge sheet is that he had negligently left the name of Shri Kok Singh, handicapped person because of which the image of the organization is tarnished. However, the respondents have not denied the said act of the petitioner that it ultimately not resulted into deprivation from the benefits to the said handicapped person. In other words, the stand of the petitioner that although initially the name of Kok Singh was not included in the survey, it was later on included and benefits were extended to Shri Kok Singh, is not disputed.

In the opinion of this Court, there are two points which needs to be decided:-

Firstly, whether the nature of negligence shown against the petitioner can be said to be sufficient to initiate enquiry and impose punishment. Secondly, whether the disciplinary proceedings can be permitted to be continued after passing of the resolution dated 16.1.2004 wherein the final decision has been taken by the employer to punish the petitioner.

The Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. J. Ahmed, ) opined that every negligence does not always constitute misconduct. Unless the impact of the said negligence is severe, one cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The Apex Court held as under:-

There may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation may be negligence in discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high.

This view of J. Ahmed (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court in Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd Vs. Sikander Singh,

A bare perusal of the charge sheet makes it clear that there is no allegation against the petitioner that his negligence was deliberate or tainted with any oblique or ulterior motive. In addition, this Court has stayed the resolution dated 16.4.2004 on 4.2.2004 and pursuant to this order disciplinary proceedings had not continued. The petition deserves to succeed on the basis of J. Ahmed (supra) and the employer cannot be permitted to continue the enquiry any further. The petition deserves success for yet another reason that as per Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1968, the disciplinary enquiry was to be conducted as per M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. By rule 52 of aforesaid rules, the C.C.A. Rules were adopted. The respondents have taken the final decision without following the mandate of the said rules by resolution Annexure P-11. The said resolution runs contrary to the principles of natural justice and the mandate of the service rules and C.C.A. rules. After having taken such a decision by way of resolution, the fate of the petitioner was sealed. This action and resolution cannot pass the litmus test of principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Resultantly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned resolution Annexure P-11, the disciplinary proceedings and charge sheet dated 2.1.2004 are set aside. No cost.