K L SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The petitioner before this Court a retired Government servant has filed this present petition being aggrieved by order dated 22-11-1999 passed by the respondents by which a punishment of stoppage of three increments and a recovery of Rs. 555.75 has been inflected upon him after conducting a departmental enquiry. The petitioner is also aggrieved by dismissal of his appeal, vide order dated 2-5-2008.

(2.) The petitioner's contention is that he was working on the post of Surveyor while in service and on 4-4-1978, he was placed under suspension contemplating a departmental enquiry. The petitioner has further stated that a letter was issued informing him about the departmental enquiry on 6-2-1979 and thereafter, he was transferred also from Khandwa to Dhar on 2-7-1979. The petitioner has further stated that he did submit a reply to the charge-sheet issued by the Department. however, the Department after considering the reply of the petitioner has finally passed an order on 13-10-1981 cancelling the departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner. Not only this, the Joint Director Agriculture on 31-3-1986 has directed for regularisation of the period spent under suspension and finally an order was passed regularising the period spent under suspension and granting full salary to the petitioner on 28-4-1986. The petitioner's contention is that the respondents in the year 1995 meaning thereby after about 15 years of closing the departmental enquiry, again issued notice to the petitioner for continuing with the departmental enquiry and the departmental enquiry was concluded later on. The petitioner has further stated that in the departmental enquiry, a punishment of stoppage of three increments and a recovery of Rs. 555.75 has been inflicted upon him. The petitioner has raised various grounds before this Court.

(3.) His first contention is that the departmental enquiry was concluded and closed in the year 1981 and could not have been conducted again afresh in respect of same charges in the manner and method it has been done by the respondents and, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority deserves to be set aside. The petitioner's second ground is that the delay in re-initiating the departmental enquiry is a fatal delay as the respondents after 15 years from the date of closing the departmental enquiry have re-initiated the departmental enquiry on same set of charges and, therefore, the impugned orders are bad in law and liable to be quashed.