LAWS(SC)-1994-5-68

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. L P TIWARI

Decided On May 05, 1994
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant
V/S
L.P.TIWARI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Delay condoned. Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant had contemplated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and considered it expedient to keep the respondent under suspension pending the said proceedings. By proceeding dated April 24, 1990, the respondent was suspended and it was served on him on 25-9-1990. A charge-sheet was framed against the respondent on July 5, 1990 and was sent to the Engineer-in-Chief, at Bhopal for effecting its service who in his letter dated November 8, 1990 requested the Chief Engineer (Central) at Jabalpur to serve the charge-sheet on the respondent. The latter in turn endorsed it to the Suptdg. Engineer, Panna who deputed his head clerk to serve the charge-sheet on the respondent. The endorsement made by the head clerk on December 21, 1990, reads thus:

(3.) The appellant's contention is that the respondent having had knowledge of the order of suspension and initiation of the proceedings, made himself scarce and evaded the receipt of the charge-sheet and all attempts made by the appellants, within the period of limitation to serve the charge-sheet proved futile. Having successfully evaded the receipt of the charge-sheet till the expiry of 90 days, the respondent approached the Tribunal in 1992 and claimed that his suspension after the expiry of 90 days prescribed under R. 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, for short the rules had become illegal and void, and had stood revoked. We find force in the contention. It is seen from the letter addressed by the Chief Engineer, Jabalpur to the Govt. that the respondent, the Executive Engineer had not given the address nor reported to the office of the Superintending Engineer as per the directions issued by the Government and that his whereabouts were not known. It would thus be clear that after having had knowledge of the suspension order the respondent thwarted the attempt to serve the charge-sheet against him and thereby refused to receive it. He thus evaded to receive the charge-sheet. Rule 9 of the Rules provides thus :