Even for minor penalties, disputed factual charges require an enquiry under natural justice.

The petitioner, while serving as Principal of Government Model Higher Secondary School, Churhat, District Sidhi, faced allegations of financial irregularities based on a complaint dated 17 November 2014.

An enquiry report found one allegation proved and two allegations partly proved, following which the Collector issued a show-cause notice dated 10 March 2015.

Thereafter, the Commissioner, Rewa Division, issued a further show-cause notice alleging violation of Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, and proposing withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect under Rule 10(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

The petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying the allegations and explaining the relevant facts and materials.

The disciplinary authority rejected the reply as unsatisfactory and imposed the penalty on 26 December 2015. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed on 6 April 2016.

He challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that, since the factual allegations had been denied, an enquiry under Rule 14 was mandatory.

Whether withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect, though classified as a minor penalty, could be imposed after merely considering a show-cause reply when the petitioner had specifically denied the factual allegations?

Whether the disciplinary authority was required to conduct an enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the applicable disciplinary rules before imposing the penalty?

Whether the orders dated 26 December 2015 and 6 April 2016 were liable to be quashed?

The Court applied Rule 10(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, under which withholding increments with or without cumulative effect is a minor penalty, and Rule 16(1), which prescribes the procedure for imposing minor penalties.

However, the Court relied on O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 180, for the rule that even in minor-penalty proceedings, the delinquent employee must be given an opportunity to explain the charges and, where factual charges are denied, an enquiry must ordinarily be conducted as a minimum requirement of natural justice.

The Court also referred to Rule 14 of the 1966 Rules concerning regular departmental enquiry proceedings.

Although the penalty imposed on the petitioner was a minor penalty, the allegations concerned factual misconduct and financial irregularities.

The petitioner had not merely failed to respond; he had submitted a detailed reply denying the charges and supporting his defence with factual material.

The disciplinary authority nevertheless relied upon the prior reports and rejected the reply without conducting an enquiry to test the disputed facts.

Applying the principle in O.K. Bhardwaj, the Court held that denial of factual allegations triggered the requirement of an enquiry, notwithstanding the minor classification of the proposed penalty.

The Court therefore concluded that the disciplinary process did not satisfy the minimum requirements of natural justice and that the punishment order could not be sustained.

The disciplinary authority was granted liberty to proceed afresh from the stage of receipt of the petitioner’s reply and conduct an enquiry in accordance with the applicable Rules and the principles laid down in O.K. Bhardwaj.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.