S. P. JYOTISHI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second round of litigation on behalf of the petitioner a retired employee who is more than 75 years of age. Records indicate that petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard on 16.12.1965. He was promoted as a Forester thereafter, as a Range Assistant and subsequently as a Deputy Ranger and has retired on attaining the age of superannuation as is evident from Annexure P/5 w.e.f. 31st January 1996. While the petitioner was so working in the department prior to his retirement a charge sheet was issued to him on March, 1978. A departmental enquiry was conducted and a punishment order dated 24.2.83 was imposed. By the aforesaid order, punishment of reducing him to the lowest stage in the cadre of Vanpal and directing for stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect and treating the period of suspension as suspension was imposed. Appeal having been dismissed petitioner challenged all these orders by filing an application before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal being O.A. No.2550/89. When the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was wound up. As a result the application was transferred to this Court and was registered as W.P. No.5874/2003. The writ petition was decided vide Annexure P/4 on 4.10.2005 by which time the petitioner had already retired.

(2.) BE it as it may be, this Court found that the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner is not proper, the Appellate Authority has acted contrary to law and therefore, the entire punishment orders and the orders of appellate authority were quashed and the matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority to conduct an enquiry afresh from the stage of appointment of Presenting Officer. Accordingly, after the entire punishment was quashed the enquiry commenced from the stage of appointment of Presenting Officer, enquiry was concluded and thereafter again on 31st May, 2006 Annexure P/6, the same punishment of bringing the petitioner to the stage of minimum of the stage of Vanpal i.e. Rs.155/- w.e.f. 24.2.83 and stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect was imposed along with confirmation of suspension period. This order Annexure P/6 was again challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. No. 17861/2006 (s). This petition was allowed on 27.10.2010 and after taking note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of R. Jeevaratnam vs. State of Madras - AIR 1966 SC 951 and a judgment of this Court in the case of Rajaram Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others - 2003(3) MPLJ 501, it was found by this Court that the punishment of retrospectively recovering the increments and undoing the promotions and pay fixation granted could not be ordered and allowed the petition, quashed the order of punishment and after taking note of the retirement of the petitioner which was w.e.f. 31.1.1996 directed for passing of a fresh order of punishment in accordance with law. The findings recorded by this Court and the directions issued in W.P. No.17861/2006 (s) read as under :-

(3.) SHRI S. K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as the punishment is imposed in accordance to law and as the departmental enquiry even after retirement of an employee is permissible, there is no error in the act of the respondents and the petition be dismissed.