UMAKANT DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 9.12.1999 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner as well as order dated 10.3.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the said order.

(2.) The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as a Block Development Officer and was posted at Panagar, District Jabalpur, was served with a charge sheet on 16.3.1992 wherein as many as five charges were levelled against him relating to demand of illegal gratification in the implementation of the Jeevandhara Scheme; giving benefit to unqualified persons under the said Scheme; making illegal recovery from the dwellers of Indira Avas; making illegal recovery from the villagers and misappropriation of Government fund; and asking for illegal gratification from the villagers for providing dwelling houses. Pursuant to the charge sheet, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the inquiry report was submitted on 21.9.1995 wherein charge nos.1 to 3 and 5 were found to be proved while charge no.4 was not found proved. Subsequent to the submission of the inquiry report, the Dy. Commissioner, Development issued a letter on 26.11.1996 asking the officer concerned to re-inquire into the matter and submit a report. Thereafter, order dated 22.1.1997 was passed by the authority imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was allowed by order dated 19.6.1997 and the matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to record specific findings in respect of the charges as it was held by the Appellate Authority that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not established in the enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority, after remand, issued the impugned order dated 9.12.1999 affirming the previous order passed by the authority and again imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal against the impugned order which was returned back stating that there was no provision of appeal, as a result of which the petitioner was forced to file O.A No.2273/2000 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal which was ultimately transferred to this Court and was registered as W.P No.14969/2003. The aforesaid Writ Petition was allowed by order dated 10.5.2004, and the matter was again remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner by giving elaborate directions, in the following terms:-

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders of punishment deserve to be quashed as the same have been imposed upon the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner had incurred the wrath of the ruling political party at the relevant point of time as an unpleasant incident against one of the elected representative had taken place in the village while implementing the scheme of the Government as a result of which the petitioner has been made a scape goat and has been punished. It is further submitted that the Collector had constituted a committee of three officers to conduct a preliminary fact finding enquiry in respect of the charges against the petitioner and the aforesaid committee submitted its report on the basis of which the enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has been found guilty by relying only upon the fact finding enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings and no independent finding, on the basis of the evidence produced in the departmental enquiry, has been recorded which is evident from the fact that the enquiry officer has only examined the three members of the aforesaid fact finding committee but have not examined any of the witnesses who have alleged to have paid illegal gratification to the petitioner in the departmental enquiry nor has the petitioner been given any opportunity to cross examine these persons and in such circumstances the entire enquiry conducted by the authorities stands vitiated. It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority, in the first instance as well as this Court in the previous writ petition filed by the petitioner, have found several lacuna in the enquiry and have also recorded a finding to the effect that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not properly established on the basis of the evidence and documents on record inspite of which the authorities have recorded a finding against the petitioner without applying their mind to the issues raised by the petitioner which amounts to perversity and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.