SITA RAM VERMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed validity and correctness of order dated 19.06.2000 by which the disciplinary authority has imposed penalty that the petitioner would not be entitled to salary except what has already been paid to him during the period of suspension as subsistence allowance and it shall be treated as penalty.

(2.) Facts necessary for decision of the controversy involved in the petition are that the petitioner while working as Village Assistant, was proceeded against in a departmental enquiry by placing him on suspension on 19.08.1985. It simultaneously followed issuance of charge-sheet, on that very day, containing as many as five charges. The petitioner submitted his reply, enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry proceeded against the petitioner. In the meantime, in respect of the allegations constituting charge No.4, a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner on the allegation of having committed offences under Section 409, 420, 468 read with Section 120(B) IPC. The criminal charge and the misconduct alleged under Charge No.4 was that the petitioner facilitated a fraud played upon the Bank in getting an application of loan in the name of certain villagers sanctioned for purchase of cattle which was actually not purchased. While the criminal case proceeded with snail's pace, the enquiry proceedings were expeditiously concluded and the Enquiry officer submitted enquiry report to the disciplinary authority in the year 1986 itself. Undisputedly, the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner from all the charges. But then, on the ground that the criminal case is pending against the petitioner, the departmental enquiry was not finalized and the disciplinary authority kept the matter in abeyance awaiting decision of the criminal case. It is also to be noted that the petitioner's suspension was revoked vide order dated 26.05.1995 reinstating the petitioner and he continued until he retired upon attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.07.1997.

(3.) The criminal case which was instituted against the petitioner way back in the year 1985 eventually culminated in his acquittal vide judgment passed by the Criminal Court on 10.05.1999 in Criminal Case No.32/1986.