CHANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to imposing the major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the reply dtd. 20/8/2010 (Annexure P/20). It is further submitted that without dealing with the facts and grounds raised in the said reply, a non-speaking and unreasoned order imposing the impugned major punishment was passed by order dtd. 24/11/2010. This aspect was also not considered by the Appellate Authority, which rejected the petitioner's appeal by order dtd. 5/3/2012.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Appellate Authority duly considered each and every fact mentioned in the appeal memo and passed a reasoned and speaking order/ appeal rejection order dtd. 5/3/2012 (Annexure P/1). It is further submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of punishment since petitioner was found guilty of dereliction of duties and therefore after ascertaining the charges it was found that petitioner had failed to discharge the duties, therefore, aforementioned orders passed by the authority is absolutely proportionate and warrants no interference. It is further submitted that the appellate authority has also examined the entire record and on perusal of the material, the order of the competent authority was affirmed by the appellate authority. Hence after having proper adjudication of the matter by the appellate authority nothing remains to be interfered in the present matter and petition prima-facie being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the only scope of interference in the cases of punishment is to examine the manner in which departmental enquiry is conducted. In the present case the departmental enquiry was conducted keeping in view of the norms of natural justice and fair play. Learned counsel for the respondent/State also relied upon the order dtd. 23/7/2025 passed by this Court in the case of Vishwanath Dubey Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. in W.P.No.6668/2010. On these grounds, he prays for rejection of this petition.