STATE OF M P Vs. U K KHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of M. P. has called in question the sustainability of the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in O. A. No. 162/2001, dated 7-7-2001.

(2.) THE respondent was a Chief Engineer in the Water Resources Department (for short 'the Department' ). The date of his superannuation was 31-7-2000 by only seven days before the said date the State Government by order dated 24-7-2000 dismissed him from service following a disciplinary proceeding instituted against him. The respondent preferred a departmental appeal against his punishment order but the same was also dismissed. He, therefore, approached the Tribunal for quashing of the dismissal order on number of grounds but finally confined himself only to the question of punishment imposed. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, quashed the order of dismissal of respondent and instead converted his dismissal to that of compulsory retirement. Dissatisfied with this interference by the Tribunal the State has filed the present petition.

(3.) THE respondent joined the service of the Department as a Junior Engineer in the year 1965 and had been promoted from time to time to higher posts during the period of his service. While he was posted as Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Raipur in the year 1996 he was given additional charge of Sheonath, Water Resources Circle, Durg in the month of January, 1998. During the period he held these charges, certain irregularities were noticed by the State Government. A charge- sheet containing as many as nine charges was thus issued to him on 29-9-1999. The State Government being dissatisfied with the reply of respondent, held a regular departmental enquiry in which out of nine charges number one, three and eight were proved partially and fully. The Government accepted the enquiry report and issued a show-cause notice on 28-6-2000 to the respondent informing him that while carrying out his duties, he contravened the rules and procedure on account of which the Government had to suffer a loss. In reply the respondent asserted that whatever steps he had taken were in public interest and even as per the finding of enquiry report no financial loss was caused to the State Government. The Government however, after obtaining the approval of Public Service Commission passed the order on 24-7-2000 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service for each of the charges proved against him.