IN 1-HE NADHYA PKADESH ADMINISTBATIVE TRXBUH&L BENCH E&IPUR M.P. O.A. N0. OE- 1999 c^ A^lli^^ APPLIC&NT D.P. Gup-ta S/0 Shri M.P. Gupta aged 40yrs Assistaat Grade II/ S.G.C. Tahsil Office TaKbatpar E/O Panjabi Colony Ourudwara Road 'Eakhatpur Dis-fct. Bilaspur VERSOS RESPOKIDENIS fta.te of Madlaya Pradesb -through Secretary Revenue DepartBeen-t, Governaaent. of Madhya Pradesh Hantralaya Bhopal. The conmissioner, Bilaspar Division Bilaspur. APPLICATIOS UNDER SECTIOIi 19 OF THE M)MIHISTR&TIVE ACT_1985 : aTTS_CE_AppI,ICATION 1 8& XJKC-22- •y il^ CJ,/ 'taae.j &-^'r- '.i-? \.^ aiT^qn f?;ri3-'3tI^?I •ait)ra"(rf?tr •ssi •^MM^, riTi)'yli<»,wcii-yy w<Rir avnih 'uo.^^Wi.Z^f&S" "g^ 200 3ii^i •sw'iwsfta SB^; Hon'bSe Shri Manindra IVIohan Shrivtastava, J. 29-04-2010 Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel fol Shri GRandresh Shrivastava, Panel Heard. By this petition, petitioner seeks to ^1^Ic'i4iT1 ffW^\ ^^^ ^-^1-C ^aiNiian^r the petitioner. .awysr for tfte State/respondents. assail the tegality and validfr/ of order dated 20-11-1992 {Annexure A-5}, by wjhich, respondent No.2 has imposed penalty of withholding of one increment wi order of punishment, the petitioner preferr^d an appeat vide his memo of appeal dated 15-12-1992 (Annexure A-7). Vide or( the appellate authority while affirming flt authority, dismissed the appeal ofthe petiticjner. The only submission advanced by l^ as the penalty imposed on the petitioner cumulath/e effect, in view of 1he decision Kahwant Singh 6ii! vs. State sf Punjab,\ view ofthe provisions contained in Rule 1-^| (Classification, Control S Appeal) Rules, 1|' respondents were duty bound to hold det| punishment. On the other hand, submission of that petitioner was giyen a show eause r] petitioner did not pray for any other opporti| defend his case, and therefore, he is not ei evidence available on record, the disciplina] that misconduct was committed by the peti1 of wiftholding one increment with eumulativi In ihe opinion of this Court, the p^ ground that while imposing penalty of h eumulative effect Aggrieved by the ler dated 08-06-1999 (Annexure A-9), e order passed by the diseiptinary -arned counsel for frie petitioner is that |is withholding of one increment with of the Supreme Court in the case of \1991 Supp!.(1}S.C.C. S04 3.S also in lofRute 16 ofM.P./C.G. Civi! Serv'ices |966 (For short " e Ruies of 1966"), ^ited enquiry before imposmg such a [arned eounssi for the rsspondents is jotice, to which, reply was filsd. The (inity. He was given fuil opportunlty to jititled to any relief, as on the basis of |y authority has come to a conclusion foner warranting imposition of penaity t effeet tition deserves to be allowed on the ]withholding of one increment with ;umulative effect, respondents have actedlin vjolation of provisiQn eontained in •a Xi^KC-22 3Ii^I?SI f?:ti3; 3)1^1 Tiimsne ?s[ 'sipiRrq, diJl'y'id, 'f^irey •qiWIT'Si^W..^.:.t!,?j..rn.:.^.%/, fos-~^ snt'B ^aiw :Hf?tf -•L- Rule 1-A of Rute 16 of the Rules of 1969 i"nd vide nofification 22"" June, 1992. The rul proposed to be imppsed is withholding of passing such an order, procedure prescribi of Rules of 1966 will be required to be fol the aforesaid provision was violated. Res; power to act as disciplinary authority v.'ithi' such powsr has been conferred. It is noti beyond the rules white exereising the powe the argument that petitioner was given ojsportunity of hearing and there is no ^iN?^ TW:i?if •? fe^ ^R5R •^aifiOTsn^r as introdueed by way of amendment i clearly stipulates that if the penalty icrement with cucnulath/e effect, bsfore •d under sub-rule (3) to (23) of Rule 14 iwed. Admfttedly, in the present case, ondent authority have been eonferred the bounds ofthe rules, under whieh, permissible for fts authority to trave! •s ofa djsciplinary authority. Therefore, violation of principles of natiraljustice pales Consequently, the petition is al 20-11-1992 (Annexure A-5) passed by Bilaspur and impugned ordsr dated 08-0^ appellate authority are set aside. It would impose such minor penalty as may be| consideration the misconduct or to helc procedure prescrtoed under sub-rule (3) to (; into insignificance. |owed. The impugned order dated |the respondent No.2-Commissioner, -1999 (Annexure A-9) passed by the jie open for the respondents either to considered appropriate iaking into detailed enquiry by foilowing the ^3) ofRule 14 ofRutes of 1986. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge