KARUNA BAJPAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer (Sociology) on an ad hoc basis vide order dtd. 6/11/1984. At the relevant point of time, i.e. in the year 2012, when petitioner was working as In-charge Principal of Government College, Mehgaon, District Bhind, she was suspended vide order dtd. 29/8/2012 and her headquarters was fixed at Government College, Balaji Mehona, District Bhind. Thereafter, petitioner duly reported at the said headquarters during the period of suspension and continued to remain there until the revocation of her suspension vide order dtd. 6/12/2012. It is further submitted that a letter signifying the presence of petitioner was written by the Principal of Government Gandhi Mahavidyalaya, Balaji Mehona, to respondent No. 2 on 29/11/2012 along with a certificate of her presence (Annexure P/5). Thereafter, a charge sheet dtd. 27/9/2012 was issued levelling two charges against petitioner stating that at the time of a sudden inspection of the college on 27/8/2012 at around 2:20 P.M., petitioner was found absent and as per the attendance register, she had been absent since 1/8/2012. The charge further stated that petitioner remained absent while she was In-charge Principal, which encouraged arbitrariness among the teaching and non-teaching staff of the college. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet on 19/10/2012, thereby denying both the charges and explaining in detail the correct factual position. Subsequently, an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry; however, the statements of the witnesses were not recorded in the presence of petitioner. She was not given an opportunity to cross-examine any witness nor was she supplied with the documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 17/2/2014. It is further submitted that a copy of the inquiry report was not provided to petitioner. No show-cause notice against the findings of the inquiry report was issued to petitioner by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, relying on the inquiry report dtd. 17/2/2014, passed the order of punishment imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect vide order dtd. 5/7/2014. The disciplinary authority neither recorded any reason in the order of punishment nor was any finding on the charges recorded by the disciplinary authority. It is further submitted that while imposing the minor punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect, the disciplinary authority did not decide the period of suspension of petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was rejected by passing a completely non-speaking and cryptic order dtd. 19/10/2015 (Annexure P/1). It is further submitted that not only was the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect inflicted upon petitioner but due to the disciplinary action, her third increment was also stopped. The respondents did not grant annual increments for July 2013, July 2014, and July 2015. Apart from this, she has not been paid salary for the period of suspension along with other dues. It is further submitted that it is a settled position of law that even if the disciplinary proceedings end with a minor punishment, the salary for the suspension period is required to be paid to petitioner. Despite this settled position, the salary for suspension period has not been granted to petitioner. It is also submitted that no show-cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority, the inquiry report was not supplied to petitioner and without recording any reason in writing, the punishment was imposed upon her. The appellate authority also failed to consider the aforesaid aspects and rejected the appeal by passing a non-speaking and unreasoned order 19/10/2015 (Annexure P/1).

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State submits that impugned punishment order has been passed in accordance with law. It is further submitted that proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner at the time of consideration of case of petitioner. It is further submitted that as per the findings recorded in the inquiry report, the punishment has rightly been awarded to petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate authority has also rightly rejected the appeal after considering it on merits.