LAWS(CHH)-2019-6-179

NIRMALA RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On June 24, 2019
Nirmala Rajput Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is the order dtd. 4/2/1989 (Annexure A/1) whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated on account of certain misconduct. The concerned employee had also challenged the order of termination in an appeal which too stood rejected vide order dtd. 12/3/1990.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for adjudication of the dispute is that, the original petitioner in the present writ petition i.e. Shri C.S. Thakur was working as a Lower Division Clerk (in short, LDC) in the Sales Tax Department of the State Govt. On 30/5/1986 the employee was placed under suspension contemplating Departmental Enquiry. Later on, on 30/8/1986 a charge sheet was issued whereby certain charges were levelled against the employee in respect of unauthorized presence at Toll Barrier; preparation of penalty order sheet without authorization of the superior authorities and the last charge being that of unauthorized penalty imposed and permitting the vehicles to pass through the Toll Barrier. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply before which the petitioner sought permission to inspect the records. According to counsel for the respondents, he was permitted to inspect the records after which he gave detailed reply on 17/10/1986. Thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed vide order dtd. 13/11/1986. The enquiry officer also permitted the officer to inspect record on 4/3/1987. Thereafter, the petitioner gave another explanation/reply to the charge sheet before the enquiry officer on 19/3/1987 and thereafter the enquiry officer proceeded with the departmental enquiry and submitted his enquiry report on 31/5/1988. Based on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice on 18/7/1988 and later on the petitioner was inflicted with punishment of removal from service vide order dtd. 4/2/1989 (Annexure A/1).

(3.) The petitioner immediately thereafter preferred an appeal to the departmental appellate authority who too rejected the appeal vide order dtd. 12/3/1990. Subsequent to the rejection of the appeal, the petitioner has preferred OA No.3915 of 1990 before the State Administrative Tribunal and on closure of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to the High Court where the case was registered as WP No.4205 of 2005.