J. LAKRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of order of his removal from service dated 25-6-98 passed by respondent No. 1 and prays for his reinstatement with consequential pecuniary benefits. The petitioner submits that he is member of Scheduled Tribe and was appointed as Civil Judge Class-II vide order dated 14-6-90 by respondent No. 1. He was discharging his duty with utmost honesty, devotion and sincerity till the date of his removal/dismissal. His service career was meritorious and nothing adverse was communicated or conveyed to him. He was posted as Civil Judge Class-II and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Dantewada.

(2.) In the course of judicial proceedings before the petitioner, one Smt. Chandrika Nagwanshi, W/o Bali Nagwanshi alongwith her daughter Kum. Nisha Nagwanshi filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for their maintenance against Bali Nagwanshi which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 8/95. Notices were issued to Bali Nagwanshi on 17-1-95. On 6-3-95 Smt. Chandrika Nagwanshi moved an application in the said proceeding for issuance of prohibitory order restraining payment of Rs. 34 lakhs by the Divisional Forest Officer/Additional Collector, Dantewada to Bali Nagwanshi on ground that Bali Nagwanshi was avoiding service of notice and that their condition was extremely deplorable. The petitioner thereon passed order stopping payment of Rs. 34 lakhs by the Divisional Forest Officer/Additional Collector, Dantewada to Bali Nagwanshi. Bali Nagwanshi thereafter, immediately contacted the applicant i.e. his wife, entered into compromise with her and his daughter, and brought them home on 4-4-95. Consequently, Smt. Chandrika Nagwanshi filed application before the petitioner that the matter has been compromised and she did not want to prosecute the application. At the instance of applicant Smt. Chandrika Nagwanshi the proceeding was dropped. On 4-4-95 Bali Nagwanshi made a complaint to respondent No. 2 i.e. the High Court of Madhya Pradesh alleging that the Additional Collector, Dantewada and the petitioner herein are residents of same village and friends and that with a view to elicit money from him, they have played fraud on his wife to get such application filed and thus, the petitioner has passed prohibitory order and as such, his wife on her own never wanted to file such application.

(3.) The District & Sessions Judge, Bastar conducted preliminary enquiry on the complaint and vide report dated 23-8-95, found substance against the petitioner. On the basis of preliminary enquiry, respondent No. 2 initiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and charges were served upon him vide notice dated 5-3-97. The petitioner denied the allegations by filing reply dated 5-6-97. Mr. P.C. Mishra, the then District Judge (Vigilance), was appointed as Enquiry Officer by respondent No. 2. The then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker was made Presenting Officer and the then Senior District Judge Mr. R.K. Shrivastava was witness. During course of enquiry, application for examination of Smt. Chandrika Nagwanshi and the Additional Collector, Dantewada Mr. Sarthi, filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Enquiry Officer. It is alleged that relying upon a hearsay witness of Bali Nagwanshi, the Enquiry Officer has submitted its report against the petitioner.