Even Minor Penalty Requires Departmental Enquiry If Employee Denies Charges: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a regular departmental enquiry must be conducted where the delinquent government employee denies the factual allegations, and such employee must be granted an opportunity of hearing even if he faces a minor penalty. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 331]The bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat observed: "Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a regular departmental enquiry must be conducted where the delinquent government employee denies the factual allegations, and such employee must be granted an opportunity of hearing even if he faces a minor penalty. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 331]
The bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat observed:
"Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with".
Per the facts, the petitioner was serving as Estate Officer of Morena. On March 4, 1999, he issued an order distributing work for the management of the Board's estates, under which VK Sharma was given current charge of the Estate Manager while BS Mourya was appointed as UDC or Assistant Estate Manager II.
The dispute arose concerning the land allotted to one Prabhu Dayal Goyal, who claimed to have deposited the entire consideration with the Housing Board on January 9, 1998, but his sale deed was not executed because the relevant file could not be traced.
On August 25, 1999, VK Sharma reported the matter to the petitioner and sought clarification from BS Mourya. The petitioner immediately directed Sharma to personally trace the file and take necessary action. Sharma acknowledged the direct and forwarded the matter to a clerk. However, the file thereafter was not placed before the petitioner.
The petitioner handed over charge as Estate Officer to DW Joshi on January 31, 2000. He remained in charge until September 22, 2000, when the sale deed in favour of Goyal was ultimately executed.
Goyal subsequently approached the Consumer Forum, which directed the Housing Board to pay him ₹74,718 towards interest, allegedly on account of the delay in executing the sale deed. The Housing Board attributed the lapse to the petitioner and BS MOURYA and initiated disciplinary action.
A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on May 26, 2001, to which he submitted a detailed reply in June 2001. In his reply, he stated that the allotment and payment both occurred before he assumed charge and that he acted promptly once the matter came to his knowledge.
Despite explanation, the disciplinary authority, through an order of March 11, 2005, imposed recovery of ₹74,718, directing 2/3rds recovery from the petitioner and 1/3rd from Mourya. The petitioner challenged the order in appeal, but it was rejected on March 7, 2007.
During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner deposited his 2/3rd, ₹49,812, under protest on December 4, 2006, in connection with his promotion.
The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the disciplinary and appellate orders on the ground that the orders were non-speaking and no regular departmental enquiry was conducted despite his denial of factual allegations.
The counsel for the respondents argued that the disciplinary authority rightly imposed the punishment. The department was directed by the Consumer Forum to pay interest to Prabhu Dayal Goyal, recovery of which has been rightly imposed upon the petitioner.
The court noted that the order imposing a minor penalty on the petitioner was a non-speaking and unreasoned order. The bench also noted that the appellate authority failed to take into consideration relevant facts.
Emphasizing that the disciplinary authority, while exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers, must pass a speaking order, the bench held that the authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and records and provide valid, justifiable reasons to support its conclusion.
Therefore, the bench quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner within three months.
"Consequently, the respondents are directed to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.49,812/- to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order".
Case Title: Jandel Singh Veer v MP Housing Board, WP-2646-2008
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 331
For Petitioner: Advocate DP Singh
For MP Housing Board: Advocate Shashank Indapurkar