Non-supply of the enquiry report vitiates punishment, requiring remand from the post-enquiry stage.

The respondent, an Assistant Grade-III in the Social Justice and Disabled Welfare Department, was charge-sheeted on 29 May 2015 for allegedly obtaining leave illegally.

The Additional Collector conducted the departmental enquiry and found both charges proved. The Collector, Sheopur, thereafter imposed the penalty of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect by order dated 21 November 2017. The respondent’s statutory appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner on 25 September 2018.

In a writ petition, the learned Single Judge quashed the penalty order, holding that the Collector lacked authority to impose the major penalty and that the enquiry report had not been supplied to the respondent before imposition of punishment. The State challenged that decision in the intra-Court appeal.

1. Whether the Collector, being the appointing authority of an Assistant Grade-III under the M.P. Panchayat and Social Welfare Class-III Ministerial Service Recruitment Rules, 1998, had jurisdiction to impose the major penalty of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect, notwithstanding the Gazette Notification dated 23 May 1996.

2. Whether the penalty order was vitiated because the enquiry report was not supplied to the respondent before imposition of punishment and, if so, what consequential relief was appropriate.

The Court applied Rule 12(3) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, under which penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 cannot be imposed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority; consequently, the appointing authority may impose such major penalties.

Under Schedule I appended to Rule 5 of the M.P. Panchayat and Social Welfare Class-III Ministerial Service Recruitment Rules, 1998, the Collector is the appointing authority for Assistant Grade-III.

The Gazette Notification dated 23 May 1996 delegated to Collectors the power to suspend employees and impose minor penalties, but did not curtail the Collector’s independent authority as appointing authority under the applicable service rules.

Applying Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, the Court held that non-supply of the enquiry report before imposition of penalty violates reasonable opportunity, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and the principles of natural justice; the proper remedy is ordinarily to revive the disciplinary proceedings from the stage at which the procedural defect occurred, rather than recommence the enquiry de novo.

The Court held that the Collector’s authority did not arise merely from the 1996 delegation. Since the 1998 Rules designated the Collector as the respondent’s appointing authority, Rule 12(3) of the 1966 Rules empowered him to impose the major penalties under Rule 10, including the penalty imposed in the present case.

The learned Single Judge therefore erred in concluding that the Gazette Notification restricted the Collector to suspension and minor penalties.

However, the State failed to establish that the enquiry report had been supplied to the respondent before the penalty order, despite the respondent’s specific written demand dated 19 July 2016.

The penalty order was consequently vitiated for breach of natural justice. Since the defect occurred only after completion of the enquiry, the Court directed that the proceedings be revived at the stage of furnishing the enquiry report, without disturbing the enquiry or its findings.

The Single Judge’s order was set aside to that extent. The penalty order and subsequent appellate orders were quashed solely on the ground of non-supply of the enquiry report, and the matter was remanded to the Collector, Sheopur, to furnish the report, permit the respondent to submit a representation, consider that representation, and pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law.