ASHWANI KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P-6 dated 02.06.1998 whereby the appellate authority has while modifying the order of dismissal from service dated 05.06.1997 has imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner was working as a Forest Guard under the respondents. During the relevant period the petitioner was posted at Mainpur Production Range under Rajnandgaon District. It is said that the petitioner in between had unauthorizedly remained absent from duty from 27.05.1995. The petitioner thereafter was issued with a charge-sheet on 08.10.1995 and the department sought reply to the charge-sheet within a period of seven days. However, before waiting for the seven days period, the respondents appointed an enquiry officer barely after three days I.e on 11.10.1995 and a presenting officer directing them to conclude the departmental enquiry at the earliest and to submit their report. The enquiry report was accordingly submitted and disciplinary authority vide his order dated 05.06.1997 inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner immediately preferred an appeal before the Conservator of Forest, Durg who in turn partly allowed the appeal on 02.06.1998 whereby the dismissal order stood modified and the petitioner was inflicted with punishment of compulsory retirement.

(3.) It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition. The contention of the petitioner herein challenging the order of compulsory retirement is that the entire departmental enquiry initiated for the petitioner is bad in law. It is in contravention to the Rules prescribed under Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. It was further the contention of the petitioner that he has not been afforded sufficient opportunity for defending himself before the authorities concerned and the authorities concerned with a predetermined mind have conducted the departmental enquiry and submitted their report. It was also the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order is also bad in law for the reason that the disciplinary authority on the date of punishment so far as the petitioner is concerned was DFO, Kawardha but the punishment order Annexure P-2 was passed by the DFO, Rajnandgaon who was infact not the disciplinary authority of the petitioner on the date of punishment. It was further the contention of the petitioner that respondents have not produced any cogent and strong evidence before the enquiry officer so far as the charge of the petitioner being unauthorizedly absent from 27.05.1995 is concerned. According to the petitioner the department ought to have call for the attendance register in which the name of the petitioner is reflected to show whether the petitioner was on duty or not? The further contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order thus is bad for the reason that it is firstly in violation of the Rule 14(5) of the 1966. So also the impugned order is bad on account of it being in violation of Rule of 14(21)(a) of the Rules of 1966 and thus prayed for setting aside of the order of punishment passed by the appellate authority and have sought for relief of reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.