Withholding an increment requires prior notice and opportunity of representation under Rule 16.

The petitioner, initially appointed as a Constable and subsequently promoted as Head Constable, was posted at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior.

On 25 November 2022, he was directed to inquire into Merg Case No. 89/2022.

Following allegations concerning delay in registration of the case against the accused, a fact-finding inquiry was conducted by the CSP, Gwalior.

The petitioner contended that neither the fact-finding inquiry report nor a show-cause notice was supplied to him, and that no opportunity to submit an explanation was granted before the Superintendent of Police imposed the penalty of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect by order dated 2 November 2023.

His departmental appeal was rejected on 9 February 2024.

The State defended the orders on the ground that the punishment was imposed after consideration of the fact-finding inquiry report.

Whether the disciplinary authority could impose the minor penalty of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect without furnishing the inquiry material and giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to submit a representation under Rule 16 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

Whether the punishment order and the appellate order were liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed under Rule 16.

The Court applied Rule 16(1) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which prohibits imposition of specified minor penalties unless the government servant is informed in writing of the proposed action and the imputations of misconduct and is given a reasonable opportunity to make a representation.

The disciplinary authority must consider the representation and any inquiry record, record findings on each imputation, and comply with the prescribed procedural safeguards.

Rule 16(2) further requires the disciplinary record to include the proposal, statement of imputations, representation, evidence, findings, and reasoned orders.

Where the penalty involves withholding increments in circumstances covered by Rule 16(1-a), a formal inquiry under Rule 14 is mandatory.

These requirements embody the principles of natural justice and fair disciplinary procedure.

The Court found that the punishment order was based on the fact-finding/merg inquiry report, but did not indicate that the report had been supplied to the petitioner or that any show-cause notice had been issued.

The petitioner was therefore denied an opportunity to know the imputations and respond to the material relied upon by the disciplinary authority.

The direct imposition of the penalty, without seeking the petitioner’s explanation or recording findings in accordance with Rule 16, was contrary to the mandatory procedure under the 1966 Rules and violated natural justice.

The appellate authority’s failure to correct this procedural defect rendered the appellate order unsustainable as well.

The respondents were directed to grant the petitioner all consequential benefits.

The Court, however, granted liberty to the respondents to take fresh action against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.