STATE OF M.P., BHOPAL Vs. BHAGWANT RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE First Additional District Judge, Bhopal has declared that the Government Order No. 6540/4344/XIX dated 25 -10 -1960 removing the Respondent -Plaintiff from his post as Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department was illegal, unjust and ineffective. He has further granted to him a decree for Rs. 31,350 towards the arrears of salary from the date of removal upto the date of suit, and has further directed that he will be entitled to the amount of salary which he would have earned if he had not been removed from service from the date of suit till the date of attaining the age of superannuation.

(2.) AFTER a preliminary enquiry held by the Chief Engineer, the State Government of the erstwhile Madhya Bharat State ordered a departmental enquiry into the conduct of the Plaintiff. By charge -sheet dated 16 -5 -1956, Ex. P -5, he was charged with having made over -payments during the month of July 1953 of Rs. 7,189 to Keshoram contractor and of Rs. 7,026 to Bhan -warlal contractor, in respect of rolling of earth work of Malhargarh -Narayan -garh Road. By another charge -sheet of even date, Ex. P -10, he was charged with having made an over -payment of Rs. 31,674 to contractor Bhawani Singh Bhanwarlal during the period April to July 1953, in respect of rolling of earth work of Neemuch -Chhoti Sadri Road. Both the contracts were under his charge while the Plaintiff was the Excutive Engineer, Mandsaur, P. W. D. and Irrigation Dvn. and the over -payments were made by him while he was under orders of transfer.

(3.) ON behalf of the Appellant State, two contentions have been raised. The first is that the notice dated 22 -10 -1963, Ex. P -20, was not in conformity with Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it did not set out the reliefs sought and even if it were construed as involving a relief of declaration, the Plaintiff's suit for recovery of arrears of salary was not maintainable. The second contention is that the Plaintiff never asked for an oral enquiry under Rule 15 (4) of the Madhya Bharat Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 and, therefore, taking of oral evidence was not obligatory on the Enquiry Officer. Nor was the department bound to lead any oral evidence to substantiate the charges framed against the Plaintiff as its case entirely depended on documents. Under the 2nd part of Rule 15 (4), the Plaintiff was entitled only to a personal hearing. Admittedly, such a hearing was given to him. Not only that, the points raised and discussed were put in the form of a questionnaire in each case and clarifications in writing were obtained from him. The requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution were, therefore, fully complied with.