Sayed Iftikhar Ali Rizvi Vs. the O/of the Hon'ble Distt.and Session Jud

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :

9528. of 2006(S) Sayed Iftaikhar Ali Rizvi - V/s - Office of District & Sessions Judge, Katni and others Present : Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smt.

Archana Nagaria, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Ashish Shroti and Shri Vikram Johri, counsel For respondents 1 to 3.

Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, For respondent No.4.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER

24/07/2012 Challenging order-dated 24.3.2006 - Annexure P/1 and order-dated 18.1.2006 - Annexure P/3, passed by the then District and Sessions Judge, Katni imposing upon the petitioner a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, this writ petition has been filed.

2- Challenge to the aforesaid penalty order is made mainly on the ground that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and, therefore, imposition of such a punishment without following the mandatory provisions of Rule 14 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCA Rules’) is illegal and in support thereof reliance is placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504.and, a judgment of this Court in the case of K.R.Shankara Kaimal versus State of MP and another, 1995 MPLJ SN 54.3. Records indicate that petitioner was appointed as a deposition writer in the year 2003 and at the relevant time when the impugned action was taken, he was working in the Court of 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Katni.

It is seen that certain complaints were received from the Presiding Officer with regard to late attendance of the petitioner and certain other disturbances created by him in the smooth working of the Court.

Accordingly, an explanation was sought for from the petitioner vide Annexure P/2 dated 7.10.2005.

On 15.10.2005, petitioner submitted his explanation and pointed out that the allegations levelled are not correct.

Subsequently, a show-cause notice dated 31.11.2005 was issued to the petitioner and based on the same the impugned action is taken.

4- Smt.

Archana Nagaria, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the effect of the impugned order would be imposition of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which has the effect of permanently reducing the pay of the petitioner and, therefore, it would amount of a major punishment as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra) and once it is major punishment, imposition of the same without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 14 is unsustainable and, therefore, the punishment imposed is proper.

5- Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioner has admitted the charges levelled against him and once the charges are admitted by the petitioner no further inquiry was required.

That apart, it is stated that the order is passed by the District Judge and against the same petitioner has a right to appeal, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

It is further pointed out by learned counsel that the orders passed by the District Judge as contained in Annexure P/1 dated 24.3.2006 and Annexure P/3 dated 18.1.2006 have not been challenged and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable.

6- As far as admission of guilt by the petitioner is concerned, I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the respondents.

If the explanation submitted by the petitioner is taken note of, reasons have 3 been given by him with regard to the allegations levelled against him.

The explanation has to be appreciated in its totality and it cannot be said that the petitioner has accepted the allegations levelled against him.

Infact the explanation by the petitioner is the justification for his action and cannot be termed as an admission.

The learned District Judge should have, therefore, conducted an inquiry and it was not correct on his part to treat the same as admission and proceed in the matter.

Even otherwise, as a major penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect was being imposed, the same could have only been done after following the procedure contemplated under Rule 14.

7- As far as the other objection with regard to filing of appeal is concerned, once the order passed is found to be unsustainable in the eyes of law, it is not necessary to relegate the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy of appeal after a period of five yeaRs.during which the petition was pending before this Court.

In the case of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra).it has been clearly held by the Supreme Court that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect has the effect of permanently reducing the salary of an employee and as the same falls in the category of a major punishment, the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect cannot be passed without following the procedure contemplated for imposing a major punishment i.e…Rule 14 of the CCA Rules.

8- Accordingly, finding the respondents to have imposed a major penalty without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, this petition is allowed.

Orders impugned dated 24.3.2006 - Annexure P/1 and 18.1.2006 - Annexure P/3 passed by the District Judge are quashed and respondents are directed to release to the petitioner the withheld increments and liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if they so desire.

9- With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.

( RAJENDRA MENo.) JUDGE Aks/-