KAMLESH PRASAD Vs. HIGH COURT OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order-dated 20.1.2006 � Annexure P/1 passed by respondent No.2 imposing punishment of dismissal from service after departmental inquiry; the order-dated 27.12.2006 � Annexure P/2 passed by the High Court rejecting the appeal of the petitioner; and, the order-dated 21.2.2003 � Annexure P/3 rejecting the review application, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) FACTS that have come on record indicates that petitioner joined the services on 10.1.1979 as a LDC and was designated as Assistant Grade II, he was appointed in the establishment of District & Sessions Judge, Ujjain and was given the charge of Naib Nazir in the Court at Khachrod, District Ujjain. While the petitioner was so posted as Naib Nazir between the period 19.8.2003 to 13.12.2004, it is indicated that various acts of commission and omission were done by him as a result a charge-sheet Annexure P/4 dated 8/11.2.2005 was issued to him. In the charge-sheet in question, in all six allegations with regard to irregularities committed by the petitioner in the discharge of his duties were pointed out. Petitioner submitted his reply, denied the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet vide Annexure P/5 and, therefore, an inquiry was ordered into the matter as is evident from the material available on record. The Enquiry Officer one Shri Yogesh Chandra Gupta, an Additional District & Sessions Judge, conducted the inquiry and submitted his report � Annexure P/6 to the competent authority on 14.11.2005. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the petitioner vide Charges No. 1, 2 and 4 as mentioned in the charge- sheet Annexure P/4 are proved; and, the allegations with regard to Charges No. 3, 5 and 6 were not established. Based on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and in view of the same punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. Challenging the impugned action, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) THEREAFTER , learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the communication made by one Shri Arun Jagtap, filed alongwith the rejoinder at page 10, emphasized that at best if the allegations are taken on its face value, it would only result in some negligence on the part of the petitioner in the discharge of his duty and for the said negligence punishment of dismissal from service is too extreme and, therefore, on the ground of dis-proportionate punishment being imposed for the negligence, interference into the matter is sought for. Learned counsel submits that the matter of imposing punishment has not been properly considered and, therefore, on the ground of punishment being too harsh it is argued that the same be substituted and some other punishment be imposed upon the petitioner. Accordingly, Shri Manoj Sharma emphasized that in the facts and circumstances, the petition be allowed and appropriate orders passed.