RAJARAM RATNAKAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging an order passed by the Competent authority imposing minor punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect as contemplated under Rule 10 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal, this writ petition has been filed. The impugned order of punishment is Annexure P/6 dated 5.11.2005 and the order of appellate authority is Annexure P/11 dated 4.10.2006.

(2.) Records indicate that petitioner was working as a Commercial Tax Inspector and was posted at Chowki Kuanrgarh in District Bhind. On various dates i.e. 8.8.2005 and 13.7.2005 it was reported on complaint received or on information otherwise received that various irregularities are being committed in the Chowki in question, illegal gratification is being taken and various other illegal activities are going on. On the basis of complaint received, a charge sheet/ show cause notice as contemplated under Rule 16(1)(a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1966 was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P/4 on 17.8.2005 and it was indicated that the acts of commission and omission indicated in the show cause notice constitutes misconduct under Rule 3 of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules and therefore, disciplinary authority proposes to impose punishment under Rule 10 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, accordingly the petitioner was directed to give his say in the matter. Petitioner submitted a detailed representation running to more than three pages and by taking various defence denied each and every allegations leveled in the charge sheet and gave his explanation/ justification with regard to the conduct as indicated in the charge sheet Annexure P/4. The disciplinary authority rejected the explanation of the petitioner and imposed the punishment impugned. The appeal preferred by the petitioner having been rejected by competent authority vide Annexure P/11, petitioner is before this Court assailing the impugned action.

(3.) Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the procedure contemplated under Rule 16, the manner in which the impugned action is taken and tried to emphasized that action has been taken mechanically without application of mind and without following the mandate of the Rules, in as much as explanation and defence of the petitioner is not considered, it is rejected in a very casual manner and the findings with regard to imputation of the misconduct alleged have not been properly recorded, contending that the charges leveled are incorrect and petitioner was liable to be exonerated after considering his explanation, learned counsel prays for interference.