MP HC Restores Retired Sub-Registrar’s Pay And Pension, Bars Fresh Disciplinary Proceedings, Says Alleged Inspection Carelessness Alone Was Not Misconduct

The petitioner, a Sub-Registrar, was proceeded against departmentally over inspection reports concerning a property’s use and valuation for stamp duty.

The Inquiry Officer found the charge partly proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed, treated the charge as fully proved, and imposed a penalty reducing the petitioner by three stages in the time scale of pay.

The petitioner challenged the penalty and the appellate order, arguing that he had not been given tentative reasons for disagreement and that the appellate authority had not addressed his grounds or the Board of Revenue’s decision.

The Board of Revenue had set aside the stamp-duty orders and remanded the matter for reassessment based on the petitioner’s inspection report.

The petitioner retired on 30 April 2020.

Rule 15(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 requires the disciplinary authority, when disagreeing with an Inquiry Officer’s findings, to record reasons for disagreement and its own finding; principles of natural justice further require that tentative reasons be communicated and the employee be given an opportunity to respond before an adverse finding is made.

Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Mishra and Durga Prasad v. Government of NCT of Delhi affirm this requirement.

Administrative and quasi-judicial decisions affecting rights must state intelligible reasons, as explained in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan and State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh.

Under S.D. Bind v. Union of India, isolated carelessness or negligence, without more, does not necessarily amount to misconduct.

The disciplinary authority’s order showed that it rejected the Inquiry Officer’s finding of partial proof and held the charge fully proved, but the petitioner had been given the inquiry report without tentative reasons for that disagreement. The procedure therefore denied him the opportunity required by Rule 15(2) and natural justice.

The appellate order did not adequately address the petitioner’s grounds or the Board of Revenue’s decision, and thus failed the requirement of a reasoned quasi-judicial decision.

The Court also noted that the Board had remanded the stamp-duty matter for reassessment on the basis of the petitioner’s inspection report and that the inquiry report itself recognised that the alleged revenue loss remained undetermined. In light of S.D. Bind, the alleged carelessness, on these facts, did not constitute misconduct merely by being characterised as such.

It directed the respondents to extend all consequential service and retiral benefits, including pay refixation, salary arrears, pension revision, and pension arrears, within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No liberty was granted to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the same allegations; any monetary benefits unpaid after the stipulated period would carry interest at 6% per annum from the expiry of that period until payment.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.