SRINIVAS MANGAM Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 24.10.2000 (Annexure P/8) by which disciplinary action of punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effects was passed against the petitioner by the respondent No.2. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the respondent No.1, Chairman, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, which too got decided and rejected on 29.03.2003 (Annexure P/11), leading to filing of present writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the two orders at the very outset submits that the present petitioner was initially working under the respondents No.1&2 and was subsequently allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. He assails the order of appellate authority on the ground of competency and jurisdiction. According to him, since the order of punishment was passed on 24.10.2000 and the State of Chhattisgarh was carved out on 01.11.2000 and immediately thereafter on 01.12.2000 Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board was also constituted, for all practical purposes, the appellate authority so far as petitioner is concerned, became the Chairman of respondent No.3-Board. Since on that date his appeal was pending before the respondent No.1 and was not decided finally, it ought to have been transferred to the appellate authority in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is further alleged that the allegation against the petitioner is that while working at Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur in the capacity of Inspector, he had not collected Mandi fees from one Arjun Lal Kedia in spite of there being instructions from the higher authorities and therefore there is negligence amounting to misconduct on his part causing loss to the Mandi.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that for the said allegation, initially show cause notice was issued on 25.11.1999 by the Joint Director (Complaint), Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, to which, the petitioner immediately wrote back and sought for certain document with which the allegations could be disproved. The respondents, however, did not provide any document to the petitioner. Subsequently, another notice was issued by the respondents on 10.12.1999 to the petitioner, to which the petitioner gave a reply on 18.03.2000 (Annexure P/5). The respondent, however, did not take into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner and on 09.03.2000 called for an explanation from the petitioner with regard to alleged misconduct of non recovery of Mandi fees. Since the petitioner had not got the document that he had sought for, he could not reply effectively to the show cause notice and finally the respondent No.2 vide order dated 24.10.2000 passed the order of punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effects.