Manoj Shrivastava Versus High Court of M.P. and another

AFR

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR

Writ Petition No.2047 of 1998

Manoj Shrivastava

Versus

High Court of M.P. and another

Present :   Hon. Shri Justice Rajendra Menon, Acting Chief Justice

Hon. Shri Justice Anurag Shrivastava

Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for petitioner.

Shri P.R. Bhave, Senior Advocate with Shri Bhanu Pratap

Yadav, learned counsel for respondents.

Whether approved for reporting:               Yes/No.

O R D E R  (28.07.2016)

Per: Anurag Shrivastava, J

By filing this petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.08.1997 (Annexure P-1) by which he has been dismissed from service and also order dated 09.02.1998 (Annexure P-2) by which the appeal preferred by him against the  said dismissal order has been rejected.

2.       Petitioner was Class-III Government employee working as Sale Amin in the office of District Judge, Damoh (respondent No.2). On account of various irregularities committed by him a charge-sheet dated 15.02.1996 (Annexure P-4) containing as many as 12 charges was issued to him containing imputation of misconduct on allegations inter alia of dereliction of his duties and making false entries in office record, not conducting the auction sale  and  not depositing the  reports/work tickets of process servers in office etc.

3.     Thereafter, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the respondents. The inquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The Civil Judge Class-II was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. After holding the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the District Judge, who was the disciplinary authority. In accordance with provisions of Rule 15, a copy of inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and a show cause notice was given to him proposing penalty of removal from service. The petitioner submitted his reply. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority by order passed, after recording his agreement with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer imposed the punishment on the petitioner of his removal from service. The petitioner filed an appeal against the impugned order before respondent No.1, which was dismissed.

4.     Shri  Mahendra  Pateria,  learned  counsel  appearing  on behalf of the petitioner has taken this Court through the record of  inquiry  to  show  nature  of  charges,  the  findings  of  the Enquiry Officer and the conclusion drawn by disciplinary authority. It is submitted that the charges were concerning trivial violation of procedural rules and they did not amount to any   serious   misconduct.   Attempt   was   also   made   to demonstrate that there is no evidence worth reliance to hold the petitioner is guilty of charges of misconduct and fabrication of record by making wrong entries in the daily diary, work ticket and other sale register. The findings given by Enquiry Officer are perverse and contrary to law.

5.     Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the report of Enquiry Officer and argued that the petitioner had not been performing his duties diligently. He had submitted false reports on the warrant received by him for service. The charges nos.4, 8, 10, 11 & 12 are duly proved by cogent evidence, the findings of Enquiry Officer is based upon sound appreciation of evidence on record. Keeping in view the gross misconduct of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority has properly imposed punishment on him.

6.     Considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is seen that the petitioner was held guilty of charges nos.4, 8, 10, 11 & 12, which relates to (a) none submission of duplicate work tickets dated 17.02.1995 and 04.04.1995 to Nazir (b) not executing the sale and auction warrant dated 15.12.1995 and giving false report regarding auction (c) not describing the details and particulars of witnesses in sale register (d) not handing over the report of service of process received from process servers to Nazir and (e) not attending the duty on visit of dignitary.

7.     Departmental enquiry is an enquiry to ascertain the facts. It is not a criminal case in which evidence is to be appreciated on footing of reasonable doubt. After going through the record of the enquiry and the relevant part of the statement of witnesses, this Court finds no scope for it to go into correctness of the findings recorded in the enquiry. It is the duty of Sale Amin to paste the duplicates of work ticket on to the corresponding original. The explanation given by petitioner regarding missing duplicate works ticket is not acceptable. Similarly,  the  report  of  petitioner  regarding  execution  of “auction sale warrant” is controverted by his daily diary entries, in which it is mentioned that the petitioner on said date of auction worked in office. Petitioner accepts that he has received the processes from Bhagwandas, but he could not prove this fact that he had given these processes to Nazir. This is gross negligence in service of process of High Court. The Enquiry Officer on proper appreciation of evidence has arrived at the findings of guilt against petitioner. It is not open to this Court while exercising power of judicial review to go into the sufficiency of the evidence on record. In exercise of writ jurisdiction the scope of interference in matters of departmental proceedings is circumscribed. The High Court does not sit over the  said  decision  as  a  Court  of  appeal.  Therefore,  the disciplinary authority has rightly held the petitioner guilty of charges as stated above.

8.     While  hearing  the  matter,  learned  counsel  for  the petitioner had not pointed out any procedural irregularity   in the departmental inquiry. Challenge was made mainly to the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer with regard to the four charges and the quantum of punishment imposed. As already discussed hereinabove, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on due appreciation of the evidence that came on record and the scope of judicial review in this matter is very limited. In the case  of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others [(1995) 6 SCC 749],  it has been held by the Supreme Court that a writ Court cannot re-appreciate the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer in a departmental inquiry and give a different conclusion by exercising the power of an appellate authority. The same view was taken by the Supreme Court  in  the  case  of  Government of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. A. Rajapandian (AIR 1995 SC 561). Reference may also be made in this regard to another judgment of the Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Union of India Vs. B.K. Shrivastava (AIR 1998 SC 300). That being so we find that the petitioner is found guilty of the misconduct, four in number, levelled against him, after due appreciation of evidence that has  come  on  record  and  therefore,  we  find  no  reason  to interfere with the punishment.

9.     As far as imposition of punishment is concerned, a writ Court exercising limited power of judicial review into an administrative action, particularly in the matter of imposition of punishment, can interfere with the imposition of punishment or the quantum of punishment only if the punishment is found to be irrational, shocking the conscience of the Court and imposed in a manner which does not meet the requirement of the very principle i.e. law ladi down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. G. Ganayutham [AIR 1997

SC 3387]  State of Meghalaya vs. Makhan Singh Mark  [(2008)   2   SCC   (Labour   &   Service)   431]   and   Deputy Commissioner,KendriyaVidyalayaSangthanandothers Vs. J. Hussain [(2013) 10 SCC 106]. In this case the petitioner was working as a Sale Amin and in execution of warrants issued by the Court and also in the matter of checking the work done by other process servers, he had committed serious dereliction of the duty. The reports submitted by him were found to be incorrect. The Court works on his reports and if he commits error, the same would amount to hindering in the process of working of the Court. The applicant in this case had not only shown dereliction of duty and even by preparing  false reports, and not recording the issuance of process fees tickets properly, he seems to have not worked honestly.