DEVI PRASAD PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein filed Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal (since abolished) assailing legality and validity of order dated 30-06-1990, by which, extreme penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner in a departmental enquiry held against the petitioner and other employees, subjected to joint enquiry.

(2.) At the relevant time, the petitioner was substantively holding the post of Executive Engineer in the Department of Water Resources, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and he was posted as In-charge of Kodar Dam, Mahasamund, District Raipur during the period from 29-08-1980 to 13-07-1981. For the purposes of construction of Dam and due to submergence in the irrigation project, large chunk of agricultural land was to be acquired, for which, proceedings for acquisition of land were initiated. On 15-03-1979, the Collector ordered that in order to speed up the process of acquisition to facilitate completion of irrigation project and closure of nala, lands be taken by way of private negotiations with the owner of the lands/houses situated in the submergence area. The work of inspection, assessment and valuation of the property was carried out under the supervision of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (B/R) Mahasamund, with the team of officers, for which purpose, many officers of the irrigation department were associated. Cases were prepared and forwarded to the Executive Engineer, In-charge Kodar Dam (the petitioner). The petitioner was directed to prepare report by applying the rates fixed by the Collector and then forward the proposal to the Land Acquisition Officer. The proposals were forwarded. In course of time, several allegations surfaced that large scale irregularities were committed in the matter of purchase of land by private negotiations for the purpose of Kodar Dam Project. It was alleged that the Land Acquisition Officer, Officers of Irrigation Department, Officers of Public Works Department and Revenue Department were involved in committing these irregularities. Allegations were that cases of compensation were prepared in respect of lands, houses and wells, which were non-existing, more than actual area, length and breadth of land and building was prepared on papers by increasing their area, compensation cases were prepared in the name of persons other than the actual owners and holders of land as also compensations cases were prepared in the name of dead persons. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 24-04-1982. However, as no charge sheet could be served on him within a period of 90 days, he was automatically reinstated. A charge sheet was later on issued to the petitioner on 05-02-1983 and thereafter, the petitioner was again suspended. As there was delay in conclusion of enquiry and the petitioner was kept under suspension for long time, he approached the Tribunal by filing an Original Application No. 167/1989, in which, order was passed by the Tribunal on 03-05-1989 to take a decision in the departmental enquiry within a period of three months, failing which, suspension shall stand revoked. The enquiry, however, was not concluded and the petitioner was allowed to retire despite suspension on 30-11-1989, upon attaining the age of superannuation. Realizing that the petitioner was wrongly allowed to retire, the order of superannuation was cancelled on 05-01-1990 and the services of the petitioner were extended from 11-12-1989. During this period of extension, the impugned order of penalty came to be passed on 30-06-1990, imposing penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner without filing the departmental appeal, filed the present original application (O.A.No. 2421/1990) before the Tribunal on the statement made in the petition that filing of appeal would only be futile exercise as the Chief Minister and the entire State Cabinet is involved in arriving at the decision, in which, order of dismissal has been passed. On 20-08-1990, the Tribunal, keeping the question of failure of the petitioner to take recourse to alternative statutory remedy alive, admitted the petition. After abolition of the Tribunal, this petition (Original Application) was transferred to this Court and registered as Writ Petition (S)No. 1551 of 2005.

(3.) Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued in extenso and with vehemence to submit that the entire departmental enquiry against the petitioner and the order passed thereon imposing extreme penalty of dismissal from service are vitiated because, the enquiry was held in utter violation of the mandatory provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1966"), proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner, the enquiry was held in most irregular and haste manner, there was no legally admissible evidence to prove the charges against the petitioner even by application of principles of preponderance of probabilities and the findings are absolutely perverse, based only on conjectures and surmises. Neither the second show cause notice was given with regard to proposed penalty nor copy of report was supplied to him. The disciplinary authority did not apply its mind to the enquiry report and mechanically affirmed the same without discussing much less rejecting for any reason, defence of the petitioner. Elaborating his submissions, learned Senior Advocate argued that the decision to acquire land by private negotiations was taken by the Collector and not by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was not responsible. He submits that there was no specific charge on this issue, yet the Enquiry officer has assumed the above fact as important consideration and held the petitioner guilty of charges and thus new undisclosed charge was levelled against the petitioner. It is argued that the charge sheet was extremely vague and without any specific details. It was not clearly stated either in the charges or in the statement of allegations as to how the petitioner could be said to be involved, if any irregularity was found in the spot inspection and assessment and valuation of lands and properties in the area of submergence, because the entire exercise was done under the control and supervision of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, (B/R), Mahasamund, with a team of officers. True it is that some of the officers of the Department of Irrigation were also sent, the petitioner was never involved in the process of spot inspection, assessment and evaluation and as there was no duty cast on the petitioner to make any spot verification of the reports, which were forwarded from the office of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, (B/R), Mahasamund, on the basis of which, compensation cases were prepared. He submits that all that was required to be done in the office of Executive Engineer, In-charge Kodar Dam Project was to apply the rate fixed by the Collector, forwarded to him to the measurements of lands, houses and buildings received from the office of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, (B/R), Mahasamund. He submits that all the allegations pertained to irregularity in the matter of survey and assessment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in fact, various meetings were held and the process of assessment, spot inspection and evaluation had already begun before the posting of the petitioner. When the petitioner came to join as In-charge of Kodar Dam Project on 29-08-1980, the decision that the lands have to be acquired by private negotiations was already taken, assessment was almost completed and the only exercise, which was required to be undertaken by the petitioner was to prepare cases of compensation on the basis of reports submitted in his office by applying the rates as directed by the higher authorities. It is argued that it was none of the part of the duty of the petitioner to again go for a spot inspection and verify whether the reports of assessment and evaluation were factually correct or not. He submits that the entire exercise was done by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department. It is further submitted that the decision that the lands, which are not falling in the actual submergence area, but situated in the peripheral of submergence area, should also be acquired, was not taken by the petitioner, but by other authorities.