SHIVA GOVIND Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dtd. 22/12/1990 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Respondent No.2 in Revenue Revision Case No. 242-1/87, whereby the Respondent No.2 quashed the orders of appellate Courts and maintained the termination order dtd. 18/4/1983 (Annexure A-4) of the petitioner passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur.

(2.) The petitioner was a Patwari in Tahsil Raipur when he was put under suspension in the year 1982. The allegation against the Patwari was of misbehaviour, illegal recovery and misplacing the records and and after having proved the alleged charges, he was dismissed from the service by order dtd. 18/4/1983 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur. The order of dismissal was subjected to appeal before the Collector, Raipur which was dismissed by order dtd. 15/9/1983. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order dtd. 15/9/1983 before the Commissioner, Raipur by way of second appeal, which was vide order dtd. 29/4/1987 partly allowed and order of dismissal was turned down into order of compulsory retirement. The petitioner further challenged the order dtd. 29/4/1987 before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior by way of revision and the learned Board of Revenue setting aside the order dtd. 29/4/1987 of compulsory retirement maintained the order dtd. 18/4/1983 of dismissal from service. Hence, the present petition seeking following relief(s) :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the competent authority was without application of mind. The learned Commissioner partly allowed the appeal in so far as punishment was concerned and modified the punishment by converting the punishment of dismissal from service into one of the compulsory retirement vide order dtd. 29/4/1987 (Annexure A/2) but the learned Appellate Court did not consider all grounds of appeal and set aside the order of learned Commissioner holding that the appeal was not maintainable. It was further submitted that according to the enquiry report, no Presenting Officer was appointed and the enquiry was conducted against the principle of natural justice. The enquiry report clearly indicated that as many as 09 charges were framed against the petitioner out of which only charge Nos.6, 7 and 8 were found to be proved. It has been contended by learned counsel that Disciplinary Authority and Revenue Board did not consider all grounds of the petitioner in its true perspective, as such the impugned order and disciplinary enquiry are liable to be quashed on the ground of principle of natural justice. The learned Revenue Court in its order dtd. 22/12/1990 gave wrong finding that the order is not appealable. Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Ramkishan Vs. State M.P. reported in 1977 RN 109, Shrigopal Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 1979 RN 312 and decisions of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No.6670/2021 [Amrit Kumar Medhe Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and Ors] and W.P.(S) No.588/2016 [Rajesh Bhagat Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.], it was submitted that the appeal is not barred under Sec. 64 (E) of the Land Revenue Code, thus, impugned orders are liable to be set aside with all consequential benefits.