RAMPRIYA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 11.1.1990 (Annexure P.10), whereby the petitioner has been punished and a penalty of reduction of two stages in the time -scale of pay for two years has been imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority under rule 10 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, the 'Rules').

(2.) MATERIAL facts leading to this petition are: The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 1.4.1962 in Government Regional Press, Rewa, where he was promoted on 11.4.1986 as Upper Division Clerk and was transferred to Government Regional Press, Gwalior. The petitioner vide Annexure P.1 dated 12th April 1988 was placed under suspension under R.9 of the Rules, as disciplinary proceedings against him were contemplated. A charge -sheet vide Annexure P.2 dated 20.5.1988 with articles of charges and particulars thereof, issued by the Controller, Printing and Stationery Department, was served on the petitioner, wherein three charges were levelled against the petitioner, which related to the period of 1975 -76. Charge No. 1 states that while the petitioner was at Rewa, he did not file 154 applications of leave of employees in their personal files. Charge No. 2 related to 189 leave applications of which the petitioner made an entry in service books without obtaining sanction of the superior officer and the said applications were also not tagged in the respective service books. Charge No.3 related to 19 applications, of which entry was made in service books of the respective employees without sanction of the superior officer. Out of these 19, two applications were shown as sanctioned, and for 17, without showing sanction, the petitioner got the payment made to the employees. On receipt of the articles of charges the petitioner moved applications (Annexure P.4, P.5 and P.6) for supply of copies of documents, vide Annexure P.7 a reply was given. Admittedly, most of the copies of the documents demanded for filing explanation to the charges were not supplied as they were in abundance and were not available. Ultimately, the petitioner filed his explanation. During the course of the inquiry also, the petitioner demanded production of certain documents including registers, etc. In the inquiry inspection of certain documents was allowed. After conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer gave a report holding the charges as proved, but also observed that if the copies of the documents demanded would have been made available to the petitioner, the petitioner could have defended his case better, as the documents related to the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority ultimately passed the impugned order against which the petitioner preferred statutory departmental appeal, which is pending for disposal for the last one year. As the petitioner is to retire on 31.3.1991, he has preferred this petition.

(3.) 1989 MPLJ 575; Mukhtyar Singh v. State of M.P., 1989(1) MPWN 253, and Audhrajsingh v. State of M.P., 1967 JLJ 630.