STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. versus R.N. MISHRA AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 17-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
R.N. MISHRA AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 17, l997 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Misconduct-Forest Range Officer committed misconduct-Preliminary 
inquiry initiated-Pending Inquiry officer promoted-On completion of inquiry C 
punishment of withholding of two increments imposed-Tribunal held that on 
promotion the misconduct stood condoned-Held, promotion could not amount 
to condonation of misconduct-Punishment imposed was valid and legal. 
The respondent-Forest Range Officer committed certain acts of D 
misconduct and a preliminary inquiry was initiated against him. While the 
preliminary inquiry was in progress, he was promoted as Assistant 
Conservator of Forest. Later, a charge-sheet was served on him. After due 
inquiry the appellant-State Government inflicted penalty by withholding two 
increments of the respondent. The original application filed by the respondent 
before the Administrative Tribunal was allowed, on the ground that by E 
promoting the respondent, the allegations of misconduct against him stood 
condoned. Hence the present appeal by the Government. 
The contention of the appellant was that by promoting the respondent to 
the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, the allegation of misconduct F 
against him, which is the subject matter of inquiry, in law, cannot be treated 
as condoned. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I.I. The promotion of the respondent to the Assistant G 
Conser'l'3torofForest would not amount to condonation of misconduct alleged 
against him which was the subject matter of preliminary inquiry. The 
punishment imposed on the respondent by the State Govt. was valid and legal 
(150-B] 
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others., [1995] 6 sec 749, H 
145 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
' A relied on. 
Lal Audhraj Singh v. State of MP., AIR (1967) M.P. 284, held in 
applicable. 
1 .2. The officer being governed by statutory rules, or provisions of an 
B Act, under law the State Government had no option but to consider the Case 
of respondent for promotion. The State Government could not have excluded 
the respondent from the zone of considerations, merely on the ground that a 
preliminary inquiry to inquire into the allegations of misconduct attributed 
to him was pending. (149-G-H; 150-A) 
c 
New Bank of India v. NP. Sehgal and Anr., J.T. (1991) 1 499, relied.on. 
1.3. An employee/officer who is required to be considered for promotion, 
despite the pendency of preliminary inquiry or contemplated inquiry against 
him is promoted, having been found fit, the promotion made would not amount 
D to condonation of misconduct which is subject matter of the inquiry. (149-F) 
District Council, Amraoti through Secretary v. Vithal Vinayak Bapat, 
AIR (1941) Nagpur 125, referred to. 
Labor and Labor Relations (48 Am Jr. 2d 636) and L. W Middleton v. 
E Harry Play/air, AIR (1925) Cal. 87, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3972of1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.93 of the Madhya Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A.No. 492of1989. 
F 
Sakesh Kumar, Charu Singhal and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellants. 
Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
V.N. KHARE, J. In the year 1974-75, the respondent herein was posted 
as Forest Range Officer in Majhgawan Range, Forest Circle Satna. (M.P.) 
when he was alleged to have committed certain acts of misconduct. 
Consequently, in the year 1976 a preliminary inquiry was initiated to inquire 
into the allegations against the respondent. On 7th April, 1977, the respondent 
was promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forest, while the preliminary 
H inquiry was in progress. A charge-sheet was issued on 12.7.1982, and served 
\ 
STATE v. R.N. MISHRA (V.N. KHARE, J.] 
147 
upon the respondent, who was required to submit his explanation thereto. A 
The charges contained in the Charge-sheet related to the year 1974-75 when 
the respondent was posted as Forest Range Officer in Majhgawan Range, 
District Satna (M.P.). After due inquiry, the State Government by an order 
dated 26th September, 1986, inflicted penalty on the respondent by withholding 
his two increments. The respondent appealed against the said order. During B 
the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent filed original Application 
before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") 
for setting aside t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.