AUDHRAJSINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case seeks a writ of Certiorari for quashing an order passed by the Government on 21st December 1965 withholding "with cumulative effect" one increment in his scale of pay as the Assistant Conservator of Forests.

(2.) ON 27th January 1954, when the applicant was holding the post of Range Officer, he was charged for negligence in the discharge of his duties in that he failed to inspect a coupe between 13th May 1952 and 22nd February 1953, which alleged failure resulted in illicit extraction and removal of material from the coupe by a Forest Contractor. By the charge -sheet served on the applicant, he was also asked to show cause why he should not he dismissed from service or awarded one of the punishments detailed in rule (1) Para 3 of Part I, Serial No. 13 of the Book Circular of the M.P. Government. The petitioner gave his reply on 4th March 1954 denying the allegation of negligence. Nothing happened thereafter till 15th April 1963. In the intervening period of over nine years from 27th January 1954, the petitioner was promoted in 1956 to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests in the grade of Rs.250 -25 -400 -EB -30 -580. After his promotion, he continued to get his annual increments in the pay -scale of Assistant Conservator of Forests and was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar from 4th February 1961. The petitioner says that he was also confirmed in the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests from 1st April 1958. In the return filed by the State, nothing has been said with regard to the confirmation of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. On 15th April 1963, a notice was again issued to the petitioner by the Government asking him to show cause why his two increments in his scale of pay as Assistant Conservator of Forests should not be withheld for the very negligence which formed the subject -matter of the notice issued to him on 27th January 1954. The applicant gave his explanation, and thereafter the impugned order was passed on 21st December 1965.

(3.) IN our judgment, the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner must be given effect to. It is well settled that a master cannot impose any punishment on a servant for a misconduct which he bas condoned. The subject of condonation has been discussed at length in a number of English cases (See Horton Vs. Mo murty [1860 -2 LT 297]; Phillips Vs. Foxell [1872 -7 QB 666]; Roston Deep See Fishing Vs. Ansell [1888 -39 Ch D 339 at p 358]; Bealtic Vs. Parmmenter [1889 -5 TLR 396]; Federal Supply etc. Vs. Angehrn and Piel [1910 80 LJPC 1, 8]; London General Omnibus Co. Vs. Holloway [1912 -2 KB 72]; Hanley Vs. Pease and Partners Ltd. [1915 -1 KB 698 at p 705]. The principle that merges from these cases has long been adopted in India (See Middleton Vs. Playfair [AIR 1925 Cal. 87] and District Council, Amraoti Vs. Vithal Vinayak Bapat [26 MPLC 473=AIR 1941 Nag 115]. In the Nagpur case, Bose, J. said -