1 W.P No.10162/2003 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.10162/2003 PETITIONER : RAM PRAKASH VERMA Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner : Shri Brindwan Tiwari,Advocate For the respondents : Shri Rahul Jain, Govt. Advocate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R (08/12/2011) The petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as Patwari, has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 31.3.1993 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur, whereby he has been dismissed from service pursuant to departmental proceedings being conducted against him. The petitioner has also assailed order dated 4.8.1994 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioner's appeal. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Patwari on 4.1.1982 and was thereafter posted at village 2 W.P No.10162/2003 Jhamtuli, Tehsil Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur. It is submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 12.4.1991 as a charge sheet was filed against him before the competent criminal court under section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. Thereafter a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 3.3.1992 in respect of certain misconduct relating to accepting bribe, issuance of false pattas and Rin Pustikas and allotting Government land illegally to unqualified persons. It is submitted that the petitioner filed applications for supply of documents relied upon by the respondents in the charge sheet. However, the same were not supplied to the petitioner and ultimately an inquiry report was submitted on the basis of which the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajnagar on 31.3.1993. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal which also suffered dismissal by order dated 4.8.1994, hence this petition. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed as they suffer from patent illegalities and irregularities and that they have been passed without 3 W.P No.10162/2003 following the procedure prescribed under the Rules and the principles of natural justice inasmuch as copies of documents were not supplied to the petitioner nor was the inquiry report supplied to him. 4. The learned Government Advocate, per contra, submits that the inquiry was duly conducted against the petitioner and thereafter, as the petitioner had admitted signing the documents, receiving the Rin Pustikas and distributing the same as well as affixing a note on the concerned register on 16.4.1991, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report recording a finding that the charges stood proved before the authority on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed. It is submitted that as the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer was cursory, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 1.11.1992 directed the Inquiry Officer to submit a detailed inquiry report which was duly submitted and on that basis the impugned order has been passed and, therefore, no infirmity can be found with the impugned order specifically in view of the fact that the petitioner has in fact admitted the charges levelled against him except charge no.1 relating to acceptance of bribe. 4 W.P No.10162/2003 5. On the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner the departmental enquiry proceedings were summoned and have been perused by this Court as well as by the learned counsel for the parties. From a perusal thereof it is clear that the charges were levelled against the petitioner regarding acceptance of bribe, withdrawal of Rin Pustikas in the name of wrong persons and issuance of the same, making an entry in the register and preparation of false pattas. Though it is not apparent from the record as to how the application, filed by the petitioner, seeking documents was processed by the authorities during the departmental enquiry, however from a perusal of the statement made by the petitioner during inquiry it is apparent that he had admitted the fact that he has affixed his signatures, that after his suspension from service on 12.4.1991 he signed the register, withdrew 22 Rin Pustikas, made entries in the register and issued the same, though he has denied and refuted the charges relating to acceptance of bribe or money. It is further clear from a perusal of the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority that the authority, on going through the record as well as the statement of the petitioner and finding that he had admitted the aforesaid afixation of signature, withdrawal 5 W.P No.10162/2003 of Rin Pustikas and making entires in the register on 16.4.1991 after his suspension on 12.4.1991, has held the petitioner guilty on account of his admission and, therefore, imposed a punishment of dismissal from service which has been affirmed by the appellate authority. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the present case is one of admission, in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the respondent authorities were bound to supply the documents as well as the inquiry report and in the absence of the same, the impugned orders are perse illegal and void and deserves to be quashed relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of L.I.C of India and Another vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491. 7. It is settled law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL., Hyderabad and Others vs. B. Karunakar and others, (1993) 4 SCC 727 and Sarva U.P Gramin Bank vs. Manoj Kumar Sinha (2010) 3 SCC 556, that the petitioner alleging non-supply of documents or inquiry report has 6 W.P No.10162/2003 to establish the prejudice caused to him due to non- supply before he can claim or seek quashing of the order due to non-supply of documents or inquiry report. 8. In the instant case, admittedly and undisputedly the petitioner has admitted the charges levelled against him relating to affixing of his signatures, signing of the register for the purpose of issuance of 22 Rin Pustikas and making entries in the register on 16.4.1991 after his suspension on 12.4.1991, though he has denied and refuted the charges relating to acceptance of bribe or money and in such circumstances inspite of repeated query, it has not been pointed out to this Court as to what was the prejudice that was caused to the petitioner due to non-supply of documents or the inquiry report and as to what difference would it have made on the conclusion of the departmental enquiry even if the documents would have been supplied to the petitioner. 9. As the petitioner has admitted the charges, the contention of the petitioner regarding quashing of the inquiry report on the ground of non-supply of documents and the inquiry report looses significance as no prejudice whatsoever is caused to him. I am also of the considered opinion that in view of the admission of the 7 W.P No.10162/2003 petitioner regarding some of the charges levelled against him, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of L.I.C of India (supra) also does not come to the assistance of the petitioner as the case before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment was a contested case in which the delinquent employee had not admitted the charges and it was under those circumstances that the Supreme Court held that the documents relied upon by the prosecution must be supplied, scrutinized and proved. 10. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner admitted affixing of signatures and obtaining Rin Pustikas and making entries in the register, etc. however the aforesaid signatures of the petitioner were obtained by the authorities by compulsion, force and threat. The aforesaid submission of the petitioner is not borne out or substantiated from the statement of the petitioner made in the departmental enquiry itself as the petitioner has not made any such allegation of compulsion, force or threat in his statement made before the Inquiry Officer. 11. In the circumstances, I do not find any substance in the petition or the submission made therein specifically 8 W.P No.10162/2003 in view of the fact that the petitioner has admitted part of the charges levelled against him. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 31.3.1993 dismissing the petitioner from service or the order passed by the appellate authority dated 4.8.1994 dismissing the appeal. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to the costs. ( R. S. JHA ) J U D G E 08/12/2011 mms/-