OMPRAKASH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGARD being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the matter, the above mentioned cases were heard analogously together and a common order is being passed. The fact of W.P. No.8662/10 (s) are being narrated as under :

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State has argued before this court that the order passed by the respondents is an appealable order, as a minor punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner. The procedure prescribed under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 has been followed. It has been stated that after receiving a reply from the petitioner to the show cause notice, a punishment order has been passed by the competent disciplinary authority and therefore, no case for interference in the matter is made out. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bharadwaj (supra) has held that an enquiry should be held in the matter where the charges are factual in nature before passing an order of punishment. This court has carefully gone through the allegations of misconduct and the charges are certainly factual in nature. Once the charges are factual in nature and they have been denied by the delinquent employee an enquiry is required to be held in the matter. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 3 in the case of O.K. Bharadwaj (supra) has held as under :-