Judgment:
ORDER
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. The respondent-R.K. Rai was appointed as Additional Treasury Accountant in District Treasury, Jabalpur, by order dated 13-4-1973. While he worked in the Stamps Section from 19-4-1973 to 11-7-1973, misappropriation of Rs. 80,961.50 paise was detected. Consequently, he was charged for the lapse followed by appointment of the Enquiry Officer. Ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 24-7-1986, ordered reversion of the respondent to the post of Assistant with immediate effect for two years, the respondent having been found guilty of the lapse along with the Treasury Officer for loss of Rs. 80,961.50 paise.
2. The respondent challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority before the Appellate Authority, which did not pass any order though the Disciplinary Authority - Director of Treasury & Accounts, modified the order of reversion dated 24-7-1986, inflicting punishment of withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect from 24-7-1986, vide order dated 19-6-1988. Accordingly, pay of the respondent was fixed.
3. During pendency of the appeal of the respondent, appeal of Shri P.S. Deo, Treasury Officer, was decided and he was absolved of the charge against him, punishment set aside. The respondent raised many-fold objections against the action of the petitioner including discrimination vis-a-vis Shri P.S. Deo, Treasury Officer, and Members of holding the enquiry. The petitioners opposed the same and stated that the enquiry was in accordance with law. However, the State Administrative Tribunal allowed the application by the impugned order dated 16-10-1998. Placing reliance on the Apex Court's decision in Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramjan Khan (AIR 1991 SC 471) and the Rule 17 of the M.P. Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1966, the Tribunal quashed the punishment imposed on the respondent. The petitioners have been directed to refund the deductions made due to withholding of increments from the respondent for the period 17-4-1987 to 17-4-1990, pursuant to the order of punishment. The petitioners have further been directed to open the sealed cover and consider the promotion of the respondent within three months from the date of communication of the order.
4. Through this petition, the order of the Tribunal has been challenged. Counsel for the parties are heard. Record perused.
5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Apex Court decision in Mohd. Ramjan Khan's case (supra) is prospective in application and action in this case having been taken before this decision, so it has no application, order of punishment being dated 19-6-1989. The Apex Court decision is applicable from 20-11-1990. Therefore, this decision has no application to the facts of this case. However, the matter does not stop here. Rule 17 of the M.P. Civil Services (CC & A) Rules 1966, provides that :--
'R. 17. Communication of orders.-- Orders made by the disciplinary authority shall be communicated to the Government servant, who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority and a copy of its findings on each article of charge or, where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, a copy of the report of the inquiring authority and a statement of the findings of the disciplinary authority together with brief reason for its disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring authority (unless they have already been supplied to him) and also a copy of the advice, if any, given by the Commission and, where the disciplinary authority has not accepted the advice of the Commission, a brief statement of the reasons for such non- acceptance.'
6. There is no dispute in this case that enquiry was conducted by Enquiry Officer, who recorded finding of guilt against the respondent and submitted the report. There is also no dispute that this report was not furnished to the respondent. That being so, there is clear violation of Rule 17 of the M.P. Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1966. Therefore, the grievance of the respondent has to be accepted to the extent from which Rule 17 becomes applicable. Hence, the punishment awarded to the respondent is set aside. However, the Disciplinary Authority may proceed with the enquiry from the stage requiring it to furnish the report of the Enquiry Officer to the respondent and give him opportunity to make representation, if he so chooses. The departmental proceeding shall be completed within a period of three months. Entitlement of respondent for payment of increments etc. shall depend on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.
7. The petition is disposed of in terms aforesaid, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.