STATE OF M.P. Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Per Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

(2.) This intra Court Appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchch Nyalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed, questioning the legality and validity of order dated 05/03/2019 passed by writ court in W.P. No. 3796/2018, whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed W.P. No. 3796/2018 by setting aside the impugned order dated 06/07/2005 passed by W. A. No. 1586/2019 appellant No. 1 and in consequence of the same, the order of penalty dated 06/02/1997, whereby, two annual increments were withheld was restored. However, it is observed that the respondent be reinstated in service with continuity in service, but without back wages in view of delay and laches in approaching this Court.

(3.) Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the respondent was initially appointed on the post of Constable in the year 1983. While in service major penalty of compulsory retirement was inflicted against the respondent on 22/08/1996. Being aggrieved, respondent preferred an appeal before the Director, J.N.P.A. Sagar and the same was allowed and the order of punishment was set aside and vide order dated 06/02/1997, the respondent was punished withholding two annual increments for two years with reinstatement in service. The suo moto revisional power was exercised by the appellant No. 1 exercising the power under Police Regulation, 270 (4). The order dated 06/02/1997 withholding two annual increments was set aside and the order dated 28/10/2000 retiring the respondent compulsorily passed by DIG, JNPA was maintained. The respondent preferred W.P. No. 3796/2018, which was allowed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 05/03/2019. The impugned order dated 06/07/2005 (Annexure P/1) was set aside and in consequence of the same, the order of penalty dated 06/02/1997, whereby, two annual increments were withheld was restored and it W. A. No. 1586/2019 was directed that the respondent be reinstated in service with continuity in service, but without back wages in view of delay and laches in approaching this Court.