MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON ASHWANI PRATAP SINGH V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

JABALPUR, India, May 24 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment on April 24:

1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging impugned order dated 20.09.2023 filed as Annexure P/1.

2. Impugned order is challenged on ground that de novo enquiry has been ordered and same cannot be done under Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

3. Counsel appearing for petitioner placed reliance on judgment of Apex Court passed in case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey and another, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 and judgment passed by coordinate Bench in case of Prafulla Kumar vs State of M.P. and another, reported in 2009 (4) MPLJ 204. It is submitted that powers of appellate authority is limited and de novo enquiry cannot be ordered as has been held by Court in aforesaid cases. In view of same, impugned orders be quashed.

4. Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supported the order passed by appellate authority and submitted that reputation of respondent Corporation was harmed due to malafide activities of petitioner. There is necessity to maintain positive image and reputation of Corporation. Enquiry report dated 18.10.2022 was served upon petitioner. Petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 09.06.2023. Appellate authority quashed the order passed by disciplinary authority and remanded the matter back due to non examination of key witnesses. Aforesaid action underscores MPIDC's commitment to rectify procedural shortcomings by correcting deficiencies. Evidence, which was not previously presented, have now come to light. In view of same, impugned order may not be interfered and writ petition be dismissed.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties.

6. Case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey and another is filed by an employee of Railways and same was considered by Apex Court in light of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 was not in question, neither same was interpreted in aforesaid case.

7. Reliance is also placed on judgment passed in case of Prafulla Kumar vs State of M.P. and another. In said case, coordinate bench of this Court held that under Rule 15(1) or (2) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, no power has been given to disciplinary authority to reject report of Enquiry Officer and order de novo enquiry. Under Rule 15(1), it can only direct for further enquiry, that too by recording reasons in writing. Disciplinary authority directed de novo enquiry, which was not permissible in terms of Rule 15(1) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. In said case, petitioner was served with charge-sheet. Enquiry Officer submitted its report. Disciplinary authority rejected enquiry report and directed Enquiry Officer to conduct de novo enquiry. Facts of aforesaid case are not similar to that of present case. In said case, order has been passed by disciplinary authority and not by appellate authority. In present case, remand order has been passed by appellate authority.

Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/storage/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2023/WP/29340/WP_29340_2023_FinalOrder_24-04-2026_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.