Failure to Supply Inquiry Report and Imposing Penalty Beyond Jurisdiction Vitiates Disciplinary Proceedings

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher and Hostel Warden, was served a charge-sheet on March 20, 2020, by the Collector (Respondent No. 3) alleging financial irregularities and misuse of government funds—specifically, utilizing scholarship money for hostel repairs.

Following a departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved/partly proved.

On December 20, 2021, the Collector imposed a major penalty of withholding four increments with cumulative effect.

Upon appeal, the Respondent No. 2 (Appellate Authority) modified this to a minor penalty (stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect) on the grounds that the Collector was only competent to impose minor penalties.

The petitioner challenged both orders and the initial charge-sheet.

1. Whether Respondent No. 3 was competent to initiate major penalty proceedings despite being empowered only to impose minor penalties.

2. Whether the modification of a major penalty into a minor penalty by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2) was legal and valid.

3. Whether the Appellate Authority's order was vitiated for being non-speaking and failing to address the petitioner's grounds of appeal.

4. Whether the non-supply of the enquiry report prior to the imposition of punishment vitiated the proceedings.

The court applied Rules 12, 13, and 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

Rule 13(2) empowers a disciplinary authority competent to impose only minor penalties (clauses i-iv of Rule 10) to nonetheless institute proceedings for major penalties (clauses v-ix).

Rule 14(21)(a) mandates that if such an authority finds a major penalty warranted, they must transmit the record to the authority competent to impose it.

Regarding natural justice, the court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in *ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727*, which established that the non-supply of an enquiry report to the delinquent employee constitutes a violation of the right to defend oneself.

The Court determined that while the Collector was competent to *initiate* major penalty proceedings under Rule 13(2), he lacked the jurisdiction to *impose* a major penalty.

Per Rule 14(21), once the Collector formed the opinion that a major penalty was necessary, he was legally obligated to transmit the records to the competent superior authority rather than passing the order himself.

The Court further found that the Appellate Authority erred by simply modifying the penalty to a minor one to "legalize" the jurisdictional defect without addressing the petitioner's specific factual and legal grounds.

Finally, the Court noted that the undisputed failure to supply the enquiry report to the petitioner before the punishment was imposed fundamentally violated the principles of natural justice and rendered the proceedings unsustainable.

It held that while the charge-sheet was valid, the subsequent punishment orders were illegal.

The orders dated 20/12/2021 (Annexure-P/2) and 02/05/2023 (Annexure-P/1) were set aside.

The matter was remitted to the Collector to proceed afresh from the stage of supplying the enquiry report to the petitioner and obtaining his explanation.

If a major penalty is deemed necessary after this stage, the Collector must transmit the records to the competent authority as per the CCA Rules.

The entire exercise must be completed within 90 days.