Non-Supply Of Inquiry Report To Accused Delinquent Employee Vitiates Punishment Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat, set aside the punishment order imposed on an In-Charge Principal of a Government College, holding that the failure to supply a copy of the inquiry report to the employee and the absence of a show-cause notice before imposing the penalty vitiated the entire disciplinary proceeding. The court further directed the State to regularize the period of suspension, grant withheld annual increments, pay all consequential dues, and awarded costs for harassment caused to the petitioner.
The petitioner, appointed as Lecturer (Sociology) on an ad hoc basis on 6 November 1984, was working as In-charge Principal of a Government College when she was suspended on 29 August 2012 and directed to report at another government college during the suspension period. She duly reported and remained present until her suspension was revoked on 6 December 2012, with a certificate of presence issued by the principal of that college.
A charge sheet dated 27 September 2012 was issued alleging that she was found absent during a surprise inspection on 27 August 2012 and had remained absent since 1 August 2012, thereby causing indiscipline. She denied both charges in her reply dated 19 October 2012. During the departmental inquiry, witness statements were not recorded in her presence, she was not permitted to cross-examine witnesses, and relevant documents were not supplied to her. The inquiry report dated 17 February 2014 was also not provided to her, and no show-cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority prior to imposition of punishment.
The disciplinary authority, relying on the inquiry report, imposed a minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 5 July 2014, without recording reasons or findings. Her appeal was dismissed by a non-speaking order dated 19 October 2015. The respondents also failed to grant annual increments for July 2013, July 2014, and July 2015 and did not pay salary for the suspension period. The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
The Court, on perusal of the punishment order dated 5 July 2014, observed: "The Disciplinary Authority, while passing imposing the punishment order of a Government servant, is exercising quasi-judicial powers and even the quasi-judicial orders must be speaking orders. The Disciplinary authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reasons or grounds in support of its conclusion. On perusal of the punishment order, it does not appear to be a speaking one."
Similarly, with respect to the appellate order dated 19 October 2015, the Court recorded: "The Appellate Authority, while passing imposing the appellate order of a Government servant, is exercising quasi-judicial powers and even the quasi-judicial orders must be speaking orders. The Appellate authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reasons or grounds in support of its conclusion. On perusal of the appellate order, it does not appear to be a speaking one."
The Court further stated: "It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an authority to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised with due diligence, and in reasonable and rational manner." It also recorded: "The face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even by an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties must speak. The affected party must know how his case or defence was considered before passing the prejudicial order."
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh and others [(2016) 1 SCC 724], the Court recorded that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self-sustaining one, containing all reasons which prevailed on the official to arrive at the conclusion, and that "the Government does not have a carte blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons."
The Court further stated: "non-supply of the inquiry report to the petitioner vitiates the order of punishment passed by the respondent/authority."
The Court directed: "The impugned punishment order dated 5.7.2014 (Annexure P/2) and the order rejecting the appeal dated 19.10.2015 (Annexure P/1) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to grant increments for the years 2013 and 2014 and consequently pay the arrears thereof. The respondents shall regularize the period of suspension of petitioner from 29.8.2012 to 6.12.2012 and pay the difference of salary for the entire period of suspension along with other emoluments."
"The respondents are further directed to grant the increment for the year 2015 along with other consequential benefits to petitioner and to revise the PPO and GPO within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the order is not complied with within the aforesaid period, the respondents shall pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of entitlement till actual payment. The respondent/State is directed to pay cost of Rs.5000/- to petitioner for harrasment and the respondent/State shall be at liberty to recover the same from the erring officer."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Sonal Mittal.
For the Respondents: Shri B.M. Patel, learned Government Advocate.
Case Title: Smt. Karuna Bajpai v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:7181
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 813 of 2016
Bench: Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat
