S S PANDEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against certain orders passed and action taken in the case of the Petitioner who was in service under the State Government.

(2.) The petitioner was substantively employed in class I service as Economic Botanist to the State Government. A departmental enquiry was started against him on 4th December, 1951, when charges were sent to him. The enquiry dragged on for more than a year. On 24th April, 1952, while the enquiry was pending, he was informed that he was due to retire on 14th April, 1953, and that he might, if he liked, apply for leave preparatory to retirement. About seven months later, on 6th November. 1952, to be more precise, the petitioner wrote to say that he would avail of the leave after termination of the enquiry. Thereupon, on 11th November, 1952, he was intimated that leave Preparatory to retirement, if due, might be availed of without waiting for the departmental enquiry to conclude. The petitioner repeatedly wrote to say that he would avail of the leave only after conclusion of the enquiry. On 10th March, 1953, the State Government passed an order appointing S. G. Kolte to be in charge of current duties of the Economic Botanist and directed him to take over from the Petitioner on the forenoon of 14th March, 1953, on his retirement on superannuation (Ex. A-8.) On 12th March, 1953, another order was passed refusing to the petitioner leave after superannuation for the reason that he neither applied for leave in time nor was any leave Previously refused on grounds of public interest. The petitioner was also directed to retire on 14th March, 1953 and to hand over charge to S. G. Kolte (Ex. A-10). On 13th March, 1953, yet another order was Passed dropping the enquiry. A copy of that order was forwarded to the petitioner and he was again directed to hand over charge on the forenoon of 14th March, 1953, as already ordered, to S. G. Kolte (Ex. A-12). The petitioner claimed that he received this communication on 14th March, 1953, made forthwith an application (Ex. A-13) for six months' leave preparatory to retirement and then handed over the charge of his office. The Petitioner repeatedly requested for an order on his leave application dated 14th March 1953, but he was intimated that the order had already been communicated to him and that he must be deemed to have retired (exs. A-16 and A-17). The Petitioner also filed an appeal to the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, but it was dismissed on llth September, 1954 (Ex. A-23).

(3.) The Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the State Government dated 13th March, 1953, dropping the enquiry and directing him to hand over the charge of his office and also the order dated 11th September 1954 dismissing his appeal. He has also requested for a direction that he should be deemed to be still in service and that his application for leave dated 14th March, 1953, should be deemed to be, and dealt with as, one made under Fundamental Rule 86.