Writ Appeal No.452 of 2010 17.10.2011 Ms. M. Raveendran, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the appellant / State. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S.S. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. By filing this intra court appeal under section section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellant State has challenged the order dated 6.07.2010 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.3558 of 2008 (S). Briefly stated, the appellant issued a charge sheet dated 20.02.2006 to the respondent levelling three charges - (i) that he has submitted forged (QthZ) receipt for self appraisal report for the year 2002-03, (ii) that he has submitted forged receipt for self appraisal report for the year 2003-04 and (iii) that he has submitted false information before the Hon'ble High Court of M.P., Gwalior in W.P. No.1715 of 2005 (s) with respect to the appraisal reports of the year 2002-03 and 2003-04. The respondent (writ petitioner) submitted reply to the aforesaid charge sheet. He stated that he had submitted the appraisal report for the year 2002-03 to Mr. K.S. Wadia, Stenographer to Collector Ujjain who gave receipt of the acknowledgment of the same. In respect of charge no.(ii) he stated that appraisal report was submitted to Mr. R.C. Jain, the then Stenographer to Collector Khargone. In regard to charge no.(iii), he denied that he ever tried to mislead the High Court. On the other hand, he stated that he made correct averments and never mislead the High Court. The reply submitted by the respondent was found to be not satisfactory and as such, disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him. In the disciplinary enquiry, the appellant (State) examined the said Steno Mr. K.S. Wadia, who in his deposition, denied his signatures on the receipt about the appraisal report. The other stenographer R.C. Jain had admitted his signatures on the acknowledgment of the receipt. In view of the aforesaid denial by Mr. K.S. Wadia about his signatures on the said receipt, the respondent made a request in writing to the Inquiry Officer to refer the document (receipt acknowledging that the self appraisal report was received) to Handwriting Expert of the Police Head Quarter of State Government for verifying whether the signatures appended on the acknowledgment are of Mr. K.S. Wadia, or not vide applications dated 7.12.2006 and 12.01.2007. The Inquiry Officer (Additional Commissioner Indore Division) agreeing with the prayer made by the respondent, requested the State Government vide letter dated 14.05.2007, to issue necessary instructions in the matter for verifying the signatures from Handwriting Expert posted at Police Head Quarter, Bhopal. The relevant portion of the letter sent by the inquiry officer to the State Government reads thus :- Jh MQfj;k }kjk izLrqr vUrfje vkosnu&i= fnukad 3@5@2007 (izkfIr fnukad 7@5@2007) esa] Jh okfM;k ds gLrk{kjksa dk feyku] fdlh gLrfyfi fo'ks"kK ls djk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k gSA gLrfyfi ;k gLrk{kj feyku ds laca/k esa] gLrfyfi fo'ks"kK dh jk; dk] ,d oS/kkfud egRo gSA bl izdj.k esa Hkh mDr gLrk{kjksa dh tkap] fdlh gLrfyfi fo'ks"kK ls djkbZ tkuk vko';d izrhr gksrk gSA iz'uk/khu tkWp dk vkjksi dzaekd&1] QthZ ikorh ds izLrqrhdj.k ls gh lEcfU/kr gSA vr%] d`i;k] bl gsrq iqyhl eq[;ky; Hkksiky esa inLFk gLrfyfi fo'ks"kK dks] mDr gLrk{kjksa dh tkWp gsrq funsZf'kr djus dk d"V djsaA However, the prayer made by the respondent as well as by the Inquiry Officer was declined by the State Government by observing that there is no provision in M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules) providing for examination of the signatures by Handwriting Expert. Thereafter the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the matter and held that the charge nos.1 and 3 to be fully proved and charge no.2 to be partially proved against the respondent. The Disciplinary Officer inflicted upon him the punishment, of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. The said order of the penalty was challenged before the Writ Court in W.P. No.3558 of 2008 (S). The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties recorded a finding that the Inquiry Officer after examining the applications of the writ petitioner and after examining the record had arrived at a conclusion that the matter deserves to be referred to the State Government and therefore, in all fairness, the disputed document should have been sent for its examination by the Handwriting Expert. The learned Single Judge after examining the Rule (14), (16), (17) and (18) of Rules held thus :- The aforesaid statutory provisions of law permits a government servant to state his defence orally or in writing, as he may prefer and also permits a government servant to examine in his own behalf or to produce witnesses in the matter of departmental enquiry. In the present case, as there was a categoric denial by Shri Wadia, a request was made for reference of the matter to a handwriting expert and therefore, in all fairness, the matter should have been examined by a handwriting expert, specially when the Enquiry Officer was of the opinion that the matter requires an expert's opinion from the handwriting expert. Not only this, Shri Jain, who has signed the acknowledgment in respect of the self- appraisal report for the year 2003-04 of the petitioner has admitted his signatures. However, he has stated that he has signed the document in question in the year 2005. Not only this, the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation dated 1.7.05 reflects that this Court was of the considered opinion that the petitioner has submitted his self- assessment report. This Court while passing the order dated 1.7.05 has observed that there was nothing on record to come to the conclusion that petitioner has not submitted his self- assessment report before passing the order dated 12.5.05. Merely because the petitioner has approached this Court for expungement of adverse A.C.Rs., it does not mean that the petitioner has misguided this Court in the earlier round of litigation. In case incorrect information was furnished or the petitioner has mislead this Court, it was the duty of the State Government, either to prefer a writ appeal against the order dated 1.7.2005 passed in WP No.1715 of 2005 (s), or to file an application for review of the aforesaid order. However, nothing was done in the matter and the petitioner has been punished by stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect, without adhering to the principle of natural justice and fair play. It is a well settled proposition of law that the scope of judicial interference in a matter of departmental enquiry is very limited, but at the same time a government servant cannot be punished by holding him guilty without following the principle of natural justice and fair play. In the present case, the respondents have violated the principle of natural justice and fair play by not referring the matter to the handwriting expert, inspite of there being a special demand by the Enquiry Officer. Resultantly, the impugned order of punishment dated 23.5.2008 is hereby quashed.” However as would be clear from the order of learned Single Judge instead of remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority or giving direction to the State Government for getting the document examined by the Handwriting Expert the learned Single Judge quashed the penalty order. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State Government has filed this appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Having regard to the charges levelled against the respondent, the defence taken by him and the denial of signatures on the disputed document by Mr. K.S. Wadia, the Inquiry Officer was of the view that the disputed document needs to be examined by the Handwriting Expert of the State Government. He, therefore, made a request to the State Government which was turned down by the State Government observing tht there is no provision under the Rules for getting the disputed signatures examined by any other agency. We find that the charges levelled against the respondent were submissions of forged receipt about the self appraisal reports. The case of the writ petitioner was that the receipt was genuine and it was given by Mr. K.S. Wadia, whereas Mr. K.S. Wadia, Stenographer to Collector Ujjain had denied his signatures on the said documents. In the circumstances, in view of peculiar nature of charges which are relating to submissions of forged acknowledgment receipt in order to find out the truth, the Inquiry Officer had rightly accepted the request of the respondent and had rightly asked the State Government to issue directions for getting the disputed document examined by the Handwriting Expert of the State Government. The State Government having rejected the said request, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that there is denial of principles of natural justice and fair-play. However, in our considered view, the learned Single Judge instead of straight away quashing the order of punishment dated 23.05.2008, ought have remitted the matter back to the Inquiry Officer to find out the truth by holding the inquiry from the stage when the Inquiry Officer had sought direction from the State Government for referring the disputed document to the Handwriting Expert of the Police Head Quarter of the State Government. We, accordingly, allow the appeal in part by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the impugned order of penalty passed against the respondent and remit the matter to the Inquiry Officer for proceeding in the inquiry from the stage when it had sent a letter seeking direction from the State Government for referring the disputed document to the Handwriting Expert. We direct the State Government to issue appropriate orders on the request made by the Inquiry Officer for referring the disputed document to the Handwriting Expert of the State Government. Thereafter on receipt of such report, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed in the inquiry in accordance with law and shall submit fresh inquiry report on the basis of the evidence as may be collected. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. C.c. within three days. (Shantanu Kemkar) (Prakash Shrivastava) Judge Judge sourabh