PRAMILA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.06.2002 passed by respondent No.3, whereby period w.e.f. 28.10.1984 to 14.10.1999 has been declared as "no work no pay" treating the petitioner absent from service.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry was initiated behind the back of the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules 1966"). On the basis of the ex-parte enquiry, period w.e.f. 28.10.1984 to 14.10.1999 has been declared as "no work no pay" treating the petitioner absent from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the respondent No.3 had no power to issue the impugned order dated 24.06.2002 (Annexure P/1) since he is not the competent authority to impose the penalty. In such circumstances, the order dated 24.06.2002 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.3 is without jurisdiction and has been issued without following the principle of natural justice, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. He further pointed out that for the same period i.e. 28.10.1984 to 14.10.1999 the same was declared as dies-non vide order dated 30.07.2014. The aforesaid order was put to challenge before this Court in W.P. No.7812/2014. This Court vide order dated 21.08.2019 allowed the writ petition in the following terms:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the aforesaid order passed in W.P. No.7812/2014, the impugned order dated 24.06.2002 (Annexure P/1) also deserves to be set aside since it relates to the same period, which has been declared as diesnon. This Court has already set aside the order of dies-non and has granted liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, if so advised.