--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 6810 / 2006 DAULATSINGH SISODIYA Vs. STATE OF MP AND TWO OTHERS * * * * * O R D E R ( 13/9/2011) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 29/10/2003 by which a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has been inflicted upon him. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dt. 26/5/2005, passed by the respondents dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 17/1/84 as Chief Executive Officer and was placed under suspension on 28/11/2001. A charge sheet was issued on 12/12/2001 and he was directed to file reply to the charge sheet. Petitioner did submit a reply denying all the charges levelled against him and thereafter an enquiry --- 2 --- officer was appointed in the matter. Grievance of the petitioner is that the enquiry officer has not recorded evidence of even a single witness, the documents were not proved in the Departmental Enquiry and based upon the Presenting Officer's brief and the reply of the petitioner an enquiry report has been submitted and thereafter a punishment order has been passed as stated earlier, on 29/10/2003. The contention of the petitioner is that such a process of conducting Departmental Enquiry is unheard of and is contrary to the Circular issued by the State Government dt. 18/10/67. Learned counsel has prayed for quashing of the order 29/10/2003 and the order dt. 26/12/2005 passed in appeal. A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the respondents is that they have taken into account the reply of the petitioner and thereafter an enquiry report was submitted in the matter and based upon the enquiry report an order of punishment has been passed. Respondents have also argued before this court that they have followed the principles of natural justice & fair play and therefore as opportunity of --- 3 --- hearing was granted to the petitioner, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the present case, it is true that a charge sheet was issued on 12/12/2001 and thereafter enquiry officer as well as Presenting Officer were appointed. It is really strange that the enquiry officer has held the charges established against the petitioner without recording the evidence. The enquiry report which is on record, reflects that the enquiry officer has held the charges established on the basis of the charge sheet and on the basis of reply of the petitioner though there was a categoric denial on the part of the petitioner in respect of the alleged misconduct. The M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides for a detailed and exhaustive procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry and Rule 14 (4), (5), (7), (8) and (9) of the Rules of 1966 reads as under : (4) The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government servant a copy of the article of charge, the statement of --- 4 --- imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require the Government servant to submit within such time as may be specified, a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. (5) (a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint, under under sub-rule (2) an inquiring authority for the purpose; and where all the articles of charges have been admitted by the Government servant in his written statement of the defence the disciplinary authority shall record its finding on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in rule 15. (b) If no written statement of defence is submitted by the Government servant, the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into the articles of charge or may, if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint, under sub rule (2) an inquiring authority for the purpose. (c) Where the disciplinary authority itself inquires into any article of charge or appoints an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as the --- 5 --- “Presenting Officer” to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge. (7) The Government servant shall appear in person before the inquiring authority on such day and at such time within ten working days from the date of receipt by him of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconducts or misbehaviour as the inquiring authority may by a notice in writing specify in that behalf, or within such further time, not exceeding ten days, as inquiring authority may allow. (8) The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to present the case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits. (9) If the Government servants who has not admitted any of the articles of charge in his written statement of defence or has not submitted any written statement of defence, appears before the inquiring authority, such authority shall ask him whether he is guilty to any of the articles of charge, the inquiring authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the Government servant thereon. The aforesaid statutory provisions of law makes it very --- 6 --- clear that the enquiry officer is required to record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit. Not only this, the Circular issued by the General Administration Department dt. 18/10/67 reads as under : “fo"k;%& foHkkxh; tkWap esa xokgksa ds lgh irk nsus ds ckjs esa A 1- jkT; lrdZrk vk;ksx us 'kklu dks lwfpr fd;k gS fd dbZ foHkkxksa }kjk foHkkxh; tkWap esa xokgksa ds uke] inuke rFkk mlds irs ds ckjs esa v|kor tkudkjh ugha nh tkrh gS] ftlds dkj.k xokgksa dks cqykus esa foyEc gksrk gSA 2- bl laca/k esa 'kklu }kjk ;g funZs'k fn;k tkrk gS fd foHkkxh; tkWap esa vkjksi i= ds lkFk xokgksa dh lwph esa xokgksa ds iw.kZ uke rFkk mudk inuke rFkk os fdl Lfkku ij dk;Zjr gS] bldh tkudkjh nh tk;sA xokgksa ds inuke ds laca/k esa mudk orZeku inuke D;k gS] ;g fy[kk tk;s u fd ml le; dk inuke] ftl le; dh foHkkxh; tkWap gksA 3 d`i;k vki vius v/khuLFk vf/kdkfj;ksa dks Hkh mi;qZDr vuqns'k ls voxr djkrs gq;s ikyu djus dk funZs'k nsus dh d`ik djsaA” In the present case, no evidence was recorded by the enquiry officer nor the documents on the basis of which charges have been established were proved during the course of the Departmental Enquiry proceedings. Enquiry officer has held the charges proved based upon the documents enclosed along with the charge sheet though there was a categorical denial on the part of the delinquent --- 7 --- government servant. This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dt. 29/10/2003 and 26/12/2005 deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside with a liberty to the respondents to proceed ahead in the matter afresh from the stage of issuance of charge sheet by appointing another inquiry officer and by following the prescribed procedure, as provided under Rule 14 of the The M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. With the aforesaid, the petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR