ALIKESH PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for the following reliefs:

(2.) The facts as elaborated in the petition reveal that the petitioner herein was posted in 9th Battalion Special Armed Forces, Rewa from 10/12/1984 to 16/4/2013. While being posted as such, the petitioner was allotted residential accommodation bearing number G-03. The petitioner, in the meantime, according to the respondents, constructed his own house in District Rewa while simultaneously occupying the official accommodation allotted to him. Resultantly, an inspection of both the properties i.e. one owned by the petitioner and the other being the government accommodation, was carried out, and it was found that while residing in the private property, the petitioner was simultaneously occupying the government accommodation as well. Consequently, the petitioner was issued a notice dtd. 16/7/2013 (Annexure P/1) calling upon him to vacate the premises immediately. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said notice, which is contained in Annexure P/2 and in the reply, the petitioner stated that his own house was under construction and as soon as the construction would be over, he would vacate the government accommodation. Unfortunately, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 2/9/2013 (Annexure P/5). Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted, which has ensued in passing of the impugned order dtd. 23/3/2014 (Annexure P/8) of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. The order passed by the disciplinary authority was assailed by the petitioner by filing an appeal. The appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, this petition is filed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dtd. 23/3/2014 contained in Annexure P/8 is unsustainable inasmuch as two charges were framed against the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer in unequivocal terms concluded that charge no.2 was not proved, yet the disciplinary authority, without recording any discordant note, concluded that even charge no.2 was proved and accordingly, imposed the penalty. It is contended by the counsel that the procedure taken recourse to by the disciplinary authority is unknown to the settled principles of service jurisprudence. The authority was required to record a discordant note and it could not have been concluded by the disciplinary authority in a mechanical manner that charge no.2 was also proved. It is contended by the counsel that official accommodation was never let out by the present petitioner and the Inquiry Officer rightly concluded that charge no.2 was not proved. It is the contention of the counsel that even there existed no evidence to substantiate charge no.1. There is no evidence on record to establish that the petitioner and his family were residing in the personal house constructed by the petitioner. It is contended by the counsel that on the date of issuance of notice dtd. 16/7/2013, which is contained in Annexure P/1, the petitioner was not residing in his personal house as the same was under construction and only upon completion of construction thereupon, the petitioner vacated the official accommodation on 7/10/2013 vide Annexure P/3 and the said fact is undisputed in the case in hand. It is further contended by the counsel that as the impugned order has been passed in the absence of any corroborating material, the same is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. The order is even otherwise non-speaking and therefore, the same is vulnerable in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Manbahor Patel v. Managing Director and others reported in 2022(1) MPLJ 76.