RAM BHUWAN SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order-dated 8.11.2005 Annexure P/1, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 23 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 has been rejected, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Challenge is also made to the order of punishment dated 20.7.2001 Annexure P/2, by which penalty of compulsory retirement, confirmation of the period of suspension and recovery of Rs.1,19,796=50 has been ordered against the petitioner.

(2.) RECORDS indicate that petitioner was holding the post of Accountant in the office of Divisional Ayurveda Officer, Rewa. On 4.7.1989, while working as Accountant, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, one Shri Ram Sharan Shrivastava, is alleged to have directed the petitioner and one cashier Shri Rampal Pandey, to go to the bank and withdraw a sum of Rs.2,39,593=00. Petitioner is said to have gone to the Bank and while returning from the Bank it seems that the aforesaid 2 amount was looted by certain unsocial elements from the scooter in which the petitioner and Shri Rampal Pandey were travelling, as a result of the aforesaid petitioner was suspended, a charge-sheet was issued to him and after enquiry into the matter, petitioner has been punished as indicated hereinabove. Apart from the petitioner, the cashier Shri Rampal Pandey has also been punished and the entire amount of Rs.2,39,593=00 is being recovered half from the petitioner and half from Shri Rampal Pandey.

(3.) INVITING my attention to an order of Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition (S) No.432/2003 (M.K. Malviya Vs. State of MP), decided on 6.11.2003 Annexure P/15, Shri Rajneesh Gupta argued that under similar circumstances when the Drawing and Disbursing Officer was found to have been negligent in discharge of his duty, the amount of recovery has been reduced by this Court by 50% and, therefore, petitioner seeks interference into the matter.