LAWS(MPH)-2000-10-27

DEV SHARMA Vs. M P E B

Decided On October 16, 2000
DEV SHARMA Appellant
V/S
M.P.E.B. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is hereby making a prayer to this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus in his favour and against the respondents directing the respondents to revoke the suspension order which" has been passed suspending him dated 16-4-99. The petitioner for substantiating this prayer is taking the shelter of provisions of Rule 9 (5) (a) of the M. P. E. B. Notification bearing No. 01-01/iv/ I-B-249/a/1989/16, Jabalpur, dated 5-8-89. The said 5 (a) reads :-

(2.) SHRI Sanyal pointed out that the respondents issued a letter to petitioner bearing No. SE/o and M/ind/cr/99/1992 on 16-7-99. It is the submission of Shri Sanyal that the said date be taken to be the date when the charge-sheet of Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner has been issued to him. He submitted further that the said charge-sheet has been issued against him after a period of 90 days and, therefore, the respondents need to be directed by the Writ of Mandamus to revoke the said order of suspension dated 16-4-99.

(3.) SHRI Surjeetsingh submitted that the charge-sheet in respect of D. E. has been issued by the Competent Authority i. e. , M. P. Electricity Board against the petitioner on 20th June, 1999 and that is well within the period of 90 days and, therefore, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. Shri Surjeetsingh has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of M. P. Vs. L. P. Tiwari, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2175, for substantiating his submissions. Shri Surjeetsingh further submitted that the petitioner was evading the service of the said charge-sheet on him and, therefore, there was no alternative left with the respondents to issue a letter to him which is dated 16-7-99 when he was available for service for the first time. Shri Surjeetsingh pointed out that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of L. P. Tiwari's case (supra) that when charges could not be served on the delinquent within the stipulated time as he became scarce, suspension does not become void.