RAMESH PRASAD TIHAIYA Vs. M P HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition challenging the order (Annexure P-20) dated 20.08.96 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh on its administrative side, imposing punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect on the Petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner is a judicial officer. He was appointed as a Civil Judge Class-II vide order dated 13.6.75; he was promoted as Additional District Judge in due course and joined as Additional District Judge, Rewa as per order dated 14.6.89. While posted as Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, District Sarguja, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner and a departmental inquiry was conducted against him in respect of three charges. A charge-sheet was served on the Petitioner on 15.11.94 by Madhya Pradesh High Court on administrative side (hereinafter referred to as 'High Court'), alongwith the article of charges, statements of imputations, list of witnesses and list of documents. After submission of reply by the Petitioner, District and Sessions Judge, Ambikapur was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who after completing the inquiry, submitted his report to the High Court. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the Petitioner of all the charges, but the High Court had not agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer with regard to charge No. 1 against the Petitioner. Article of charge No. 1 related to an order (Annexure P-24) passed by the Petitioner as an Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Sarguja on 30.09.93 in S.T. No. 213/93 State v. Omprakash, whereby he discharged the accused despite there being sufficient material for framing of charge under Section 302 of IPC, contrary to the settled principle of law that the evidence could not be assessed while framing of charge, which was an act of grave misconduct.

(3.) The High Court disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer with regard to the aforesaid article of charge No. 1, reversed the finding for the reasons recorded by it and found that the Petitioner was guilty of aforesaid charge No. 1 and a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 1.6.96 as to why the finding recored by the High Court with regard to the charge No. 1 should not be accepted and why he should not be punished for the same. The Petitioner filed his reply dated 29.6.96 vide Annexure P-19 to the High Court and prayed for his exoneration. The High Court by its order dated 20.08.96 (Annexure P-20) imposed punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect on the Petitioner, as specified in Rule 10(4) of M.P. Civil Services Control and Appeal Rules, 1966. The administrative appeal (Annexure P-21) filed by the Petitioner under Rule 23/29 of M.P. Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 was also dismissed.