The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for following reliefs.

i) To quash the impugned orders Annexure-P/1 dated 28.10.2020 as also the Inquiry report AnnexureP/21 dated 20.01.2020 / 25.07.2020 with all consequential benefits.

ii) To direct the respondents to return recovered amount with interest @ 18% p.a. to the petitioner.

iii) To direct the respondents to pay the cost of the entire litigation amounting to Rs.1.5 Lac.

iv) To pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.

2. The facts as detailed in the petition reflect that the petitioner was appointed as LDC vide order dated 05.09.1985. He was promoted as UDC vide order dated 31.03.1987. The petitioner was further promoted as Accountant vide order dated 06.03.1990 and as Superintendent on 01.03.2000. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 17.08.2015 in which, the allegations of various irregularities were levelled. The petitioner, replied to the said show cause notice. However, the petitioner was initially placed under suspension vide order dated 14.09.2015, then was issued a charge-sheet on vide 15.09.2015. The petitioner, denied the charges levelled against him vide his reply dated 28.10.2015. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. During the course of inquiry, as many as 4 persons were examined by the Department who are detailed in paragraph 5.8 of the petition. All 4 persons did not support the stand of the Department and did not substantiate the charges yet, an inquiry report vide Annexure-P/12 was submitted and the Enquiry Officer concluded that charges nos.1 to 11 were found to be proved. Thereafter, the petitioner was confronted with an order of penalty dated 28.10.2020 by which, a penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect as well as recovery of Rs.6000/- from the petitioner was directed and the benefits for the period of suspension were also declined.

3. Assailing the order impugned dated 28.10.2020 (Annexure-P/1), this petition is filed by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as many as 11 charges were levelled against the petitioner and a perusal of the charges reveal that none of the charges attract any iota of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. It is contended by the counsel that the petitioner was issued a chargesheet while levelling the allegation pertaining to the petty amount and on the basis of the said allegation, the Authority proceeded to conduct an inquiry and after conduct of an inquiry, the penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed against the petitioner. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that with the same composite order an amount of Rs.6000/- is to be recovered from the petitioner and the benefits for the period of suspension have also been declined. It is contended by the counsel that the impugned penalty has been issued by an Incompetent Authority inasmuch as, the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Mandla is not empowered to impose a major penalty.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (herein referred as Rules of 1999) submits that though Rule 5 of the Rules of 1999 provides that withholding of increment with or without cumulative effect is a minor penalty but, the said provision made in the Rules of 1999 goes contrary, to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab (1991 Supp 1 SCC 504) [LQ/SC/1990/543] cited in (2014 15 SCC 748) [LQ/SC/2014/877] .

6. It is contended by the counsel that if the increments are to be withheld with cumulative effect, the same will have effect in perpetuity and, therefore, such a penalty is a major penalty and accordingly, the same could have only been imposed by an Authority Competent to impose a major penalty. It is contended by the counsel that the Appendix to the Rules of 1999 provides for imposing a minor penalty to Class-III and Class-IV employees of the Jila Panchayat, the Chief Executive Officer will be the Authority Competent and the Appellate Authority would be General Administration Committee.

7. It is further contended by the counsel that as per the same Appendix, if the major penalty is to be imposed against an employee, then the Disciplinary Authority would be General Administration Committee and, the Appellate Authority would be General Body. Thus, it is the contention of the counsel that as the penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty, therefore, in terms of the appendix to the Rules of 1999, the same could have been inflicted by the General Administration Committee and not by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat. It is further contended by the counsel that the present petition was filed in the year 2020 assailing the impugned order dated 28.10.2020 (Annexure-P/1) and the pleadings in the matter are completed, therefore, at this stage, it would neither be conducive nor proper to relegate the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.

8. It is contended by the counsel that in the present case, the order impugned is being assailed on the ground of competency, therefore, the present petition is maintainable and accordingly, the counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corp. Ltd. And Another vs. Jahan Khan [(2007) 10 SCC 88] [LQ/SC/2007/1078] and also in the case of Satwati Deowal vs. State of Harayana & Ors. [(2010) 1 SCC 126] [LQ/SC/2009/1988] .

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

10. It is contended by the counsel that Rule 5 of the Rules of 1999 provides that minor penalties consist of an order of withholding of increment with or without cumulative effect, therefore, the impugned order of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is an order of minor penalty and has been rightly passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Mandla in terms of the provisions which are stipulated in the appendix to the Rules of 1999. It is contended by the counsel that the order has been passed within the scope and ambit of the statutory provisions contained in Rule 5 of Rules of 1999, therefore, same requires no interference.

11. It is the further contention of the respondent that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity of hearing and after considering the stand of the petitioner, the Authority has taken a decision to pass the order.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran (2015 2 SCC 610) [LQ/SC/2014/1233] and accordingly, submitted that the interference with the order of penalty is not warranted in a routine manner. Therefore, in absence of any eventuality so as to warrant the interference, the present petition deserves dismissal.

13. No other point is pressed by the parties.

14. Heard the submissions and perused the record.

15. A perusal of the record reflects that the petitioner herein was issued a charge-sheet by which, the petitioner was called upon to deal with as many as 11 charges. The charges which are detailed in the charge-sheet reflect that almost all the charges pertain to the financial irregularities. The witnesses, who were examined to support the charges, though have declined to support the charges which is evident from the perusal of the inquiry report brought on record by the petitioner.

16. The inquiry report, however deals with the stand of the present petitioner as well. The inquiry report, further deals with the reply of the petitioner dated 28.10.2015. The petitioner while responding to charge no.1 stated that amount of Rs.1500/- as mentioned in the charge-sheet was deposited by the petitioner on 11.05.2014. In response to charge no.2 it was contended by the petitioner that he was willing to deposit Rs.1000/- which was paid in excess to one Shri Mukesh Kumar Chouraisya resident of Mandla. The petitioner expressed his willingness to deposit the said amount. In respect of charge no.3, the petitioner submitted that on certain vouchers, the signature of the Competent Authority could not be obtained and, therefore, the petitioner sought time to obtain the signature of the Competent Authority and then to produce the same. In respect of charge no.4, again the petitioner submitted that in respect of Clause A and B of the charge no.4, there were corrections regarding the clerical error and accordingly, the petitioner made a request for correction and accepted that there was a mistake while writing the cash book. In respect of charge no.5, the petitioner made a request that the amount mentioned therein can be adjusted and once the said amount is adjusted, the charge no.5 would lose its efficacy. In respect of charge no.6, the petitioner submitted that as the entries were not made in the passbook by the Bank accordingly, the annual accounts could not be submitted. In respect of charge no.7, the petitioner accepted the allegation to certify the acknowledgment pertaining to grant of travelling allowance to the member of the Jila Panchayat. In respect of charge no.8, the petitioner expressed that he was not aware about the powers of Collector, but had proceeded under assumption that the Chief Executive Officer was Competent Authority as regards the transaction pertaining to Rs.80,000/- towards honorarium to the members of Jila Panchayat in terms of Gokul Gram Yojana. In respect of charge nos.9 and 10, the petitioner submitted that there were no irregularities as, the income and expense details of the scheme were prepared and further sought details of misappropriation of amount from the account towards different schemes, so as to clarify the fiscal aspect. In respect of charge no.11, the petitioner also submitted that the charge pertains to the audit during the period 1985-86 and 2006-07 whereas after the aforesaid period, the charge was taken from the petitioner.

17. Considering the aforesaid reply of the petitioner dated 28.10.2015 to the Charge-Sheet which has been brought on record as Annexure-P/6, it reveals that most of the charges were not controverted by the petitioner on the contrary, the petitioner expressed his willingness to deposit the amount, so far as charge nos.1 and 2 were concerned and in respect of other charges also, the petitioner made efforts subsequently to update the record while obtaining approval from the Competent Authority which is evident from the reply of the petitioner. The petitioner also expressed that he was not aware about the jurisdiction of the Collector regarding the payment to the members of Jila Panchayat in terms of Gokul Gram Yojana. Therefore, considering the aforesaid reply of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report and accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order impugned. The Enquiry Officer, accordingly, concluded that the charges against the petitioner were proved.

18. A perusal of the reply contained in Anneuxre-P/6 undisputedly contains admission by the petitioner in respect of atleast 5 charges. The admission itself is the best piece of evidence against the person making it. The only steps which are required to be taken are to the effect that the Authority should confirm that such admission is not being made under any coercion, threat or undue pressure.

19. The Apex Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shyamlal (2004 8 SCC 88) [LQ/SC/2004/866] in paragraph no.7 held as under:-

"7. We find that the Tribunal's conclusions are prima facie not correct. The statement made by the passenger who had paid excess money to the checking of icer is not in the nature of hearsay evidence. Additionally, the ef ect of the admission regarding guilt as contained in the letters dated 13.1.1989 and 24.2.1989 have not been considered in the proper perspective. It is a fairly settled position in law that admission is the best piece of evidence against the person making the admission. It is, however, open to the person making the admission to show why the admission is not to be acted upon."

20. So far as the ground taken by the petitioner regarding the competency of the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Mandla regarding imposition of major penalty is concerned, the Rule 5 of the Rules of 1999 stipulates that an order of imposition of penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative or non-cumulative effect is a minor penalty, therefore, the order has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Mandal while taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 5 of Rules of 1999.

21. The judgment as relied upon by the petitioner on the decision of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra) is misplaced, in view of the facts that there exists provision in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1999 which stipulates that the penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative effect is a minor penalty. The petitioner has not assailed the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1999.

22. Even otherwise, the scope of interference with disciplinary proceedings is limited and the interference by the Court in exercise of judicial review is warranted only in exceptional cases [Please see: State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. N. Gangaraj (2020 3 SCC 423) [LQ/SC/2020/246 ;] and P. Gunasekaran (supra)].

23. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

24. No order as to costs.