Separate departmental inquiries remain valid where charges differ and no prejudice is established.

The appellant, an Office Assistant Grade-II, was entrusted with official documents, including service books and ACRs, while travelling from Gwalior to Jabalpur on official duty. During the journey, his briefcase containing the documents was stolen, and he lodged an FIR at the Railway Police Station, Itarsi, on 29.08.2013.

A departmental charge-sheet was issued against him on 17.09.2013. The appellant contended that Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, who had earlier taken over the Establishment Section, was also proceeded against concerning a missing service book, but separate enquiries were conducted. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect on 02.02.2016, and the appellate authority dismissed his appeal on 30.06.2016. His writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 14.11.2022, leading to the present intra-court appeal.

Whether the separate departmental enquiries conducted against the appellant and Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal violated Rule 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, or otherwise caused prejudice to the appellant?

Whether the finding that the appellant failed to ensure the safe custody of the official documents was based on no evidence or was perverse?

Whether the Enquiry Officer travelled beyond the charges framed against the appellant?

Whether non-supply of documents and the alleged non-speaking appellate order violated the principles of natural justice and fair decision-making?

Whether the punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect was disproportionate and warranted judicial interference?

The Court applied Rule 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, concerning joint proceedings where charges against two or more government servants arise from the same transaction; however, separate proceedings are not invalid merely because some facts overlap, unless prejudice or failure of justice is established.

It applied the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters under Article 226, relying on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, and Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759: courts do not reappreciate evidence or substitute their conclusions where findings are supported by some evidence.

The Court considered Union of India v. J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1022, on the requirement that conduct must constitute misconduct, and M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88, regarding the impermissibility of finding an employee guilty of an entirely new charge without an opportunity of defence.

It also relied on Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, for the principle that quasi-judicial authorities should record reasons, while holding that an alleged defect in reasons does not automatically invalidate the decision absent demonstrated prejudice or failure of justice.

Judicial interference with punishment is permissible only where the penalty is unlawful or shockingly disproportionate.

The Court held that Rule 18 was not violated because the charges against the two employees were not identical: the appellant faced an additional charge concerning the ACRs and service books of four Linemen carried during his journey, whereas Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal was proceeded against in relation to a particular missing portion of a service book. The appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice arising from the separate enquiries.

The finding of negligence was supported by the undisputed facts that the documents had been entrusted to the appellant, were in his custody during the journey, and were subsequently lost or stolen. Lodging an FIR did not eliminate his independent official responsibility to safeguard the documents.

The alleged reference to joint responsibility did not establish that the appellant had been punished for a wholly new charge or denied an opportunity of defence.

The Court further held that the Railway’s possible liability for loss of passenger luggage was distinct from the appellant’s departmental obligation to maintain the safe custody of official records.

Although reasons in an appellate order are generally required, the appellant failed to show that the alleged deficiency caused a failure of justice, particularly since the disciplinary action had been examined by the writ court.

The penalty was not found to be unlawful or shockingly disproportionate.

The writ appeal was dismissed, and the order dated 14.11.2022 dismissing Writ Petition No. 8247 of 2016 was affirmed.