J K VERMA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order-dated 30.1.1999 - Annexure P/1, by which petitioner's services have been dispensed with on the basis of misconduct, proved in a departmental enquiry, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Challenge is also made to order-dated 2.1.2001, by which the appeal/representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) Facts in brief, indicate that petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge Class I, on 10.11.1975 in the M.P. Lower Judicial Service on the basis of a process of selection conducted by Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'PSC'). He was promoted after due selection as a Member of the M.P. Higher Judicial Service with effect from 30.9.1989 and at the relevant time, in the year 1998, he was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, in Bilaspur - now, in the State of Chattisgarh. While discharging his duties as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur it was found that petitioner had committed various irregularities in the matter of deciding more than 30 cases, particularly in the matter of granting bail to various persons. Accordingly, charge-sheet - Annexure P/3 dated 17.1.1998 was issued to the petitioner imputing certain acts which amounted to misconduct under Rule 13 of the MP Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as 'Conduct Rules']. Petitioner was directed to show-cause as to why he should not be proceeded and punished under Rule 10 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 [hereinafter referred to as 'Discipline and Appeal Rules']. In the article of charges issued to the petitioner, three articles of imputations were made and details of the cases in which the irregularities were committed by the petitioner were indicated as Schedule A and Schedule B, to the charge-sheet. The statement of imputation of the misconduct and mis-behaviour was indicated in Annexure-II to the charge-sheet. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet vide Annexure P/4 and as the same was found to be unsatisfactory vide Annexure P/5 dated 10.3.1998, a disciplinary enquiry as contemplated under Rule 14 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules was initiated against the petitioner. The District Judge (Vigilance), Jabalpur Zone was appointed as enquiry authority to conduct an enquiry into the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry on 21.5.1998, in the enquiry more than 36 documents were taken on record and exhibited as Exhibit No.P/1 to P/36. On behalf of the prosecution one Shri N.P. Gupta was examined as PW/1, his statement is Annexure P/6. Statement of the petitioner was recorded as Annexure P/7 and on the basis of evidence and material that came on record, enquiry officer submitted his report - Annexure P/8 dated 28.5.1998. Based on the findings recorded in the enquiry a show-cause notice - Annexure P/11 dated 14.7.1998 was issued to the petitioner and he submitted his reply to the same vide Annexure P/12 and after due approval of the Full Court of the High Court vide Annexure P/1, dated 30.1.1999, petitioner was dismissed from service. Petitioner preferred an 3 appeal and the same was also rejected vide Annexure P/15 dated 2.1.2001 and, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned action.

(3.) Shri Brian D'Silva, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, argued that the entire enquiry was conducted and concluded on a single day i.e.... 21.5.98; statement of prosecution witness Shri N.P. Gupta was recorded; petitioner was asked certain questions by the presenting officer and the enquiry officer; his statement was recorded vide Annexure P/7; and, thereafter without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to submit his defence, it is stated that the entire enquiry was completed. Accordingly, the first ground canvassed is to the effect that the enquiry which was conducted in a hasty manner and concluded on the same day is illegal. The second ground canvassed was to the effect that the allegations against the petitioner are only to the effect that the petitioner has granted bail in more than 29 cases in a negligent manner without recording proper reasons, without appreciating the records, without application of mind and, therefore, it is held that the same amounts to improper conduct on the part of the petitioner. Shri Brian D'Silva, learned Senior Advocate, taking us through the statement and article of charges submitted that the allegations against the petitioner were that he granted bail and passed orders in the cases under enquiry in pursuance to his corrupt or improper motive on extraneous consideration and with total disregard to the settled principles of law for grant of bail. Learned Senior Advocate took us through the entire enquiry report, the findings of the enquiry officer in paragraph 73 of the report, and argued that from the statement of Shri N.P. Gupta - PW/1, the allegations of corrupt or improper motive or use of extraneous considerations in deciding the criminal cases as per Schedule A to the charge-sheet is not established. It was emphasized by him that in the absence of corrupt or improper motive being established and in the absence of any material to show that extraneous considerations weighed in the mind of the petitioner for grant of bail or dealing with the cases as alleged in the charge-sheet, the action taken is said to be wholly unsustainable and illegal.