M C MITTAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order dated 23-02-2006, passed by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of M.P, rejecting the appeal,the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE case has a chequered history and therefore, it is necessary to indicate certain factual background, By the order impugned which has been passed by the appellate authority, the appellate authority has modified the order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner on 01-06-2002, by which initially petitioner's services were terminated after conducting a departmental inquiry against him. By the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority the punishment of termination from service has been modified to that of compulsory retirement and challenge is now made only to the order of the appellate authority.

(3.) IT was the case of the petitioner in the earlier petitions i.e. W.P.No.3757/2003 and W.P.No.26568/2003 that the petitioner was appointed as a Training Officer in Industrial Training Institute, Koni Bilaspur. He was transferred from the said place to Balaghat vide order dated 14-05-1994. He was relieved on 31-07-1995. It was alleged that he did not join on the transferred place for a period of more than 2 years, 9 months and 7 days. On the allegation of non joining on the transferred place for the period as indicated herein above, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 06-05-1999 and in the said charge sheet two allegations were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner refuted the allegations levelled in the charge sheet and therefore, a inquiry was ordered and based on the inquiry, petitioner's services were terminated. When the inquiry into this charge sheet dated 06-05-1999 was pending, two additional charges were framed against the petitioner and additional charge sheet was issued to him on 26-07-2000 and the termination and inquiry was based on the allegations proved with regard to all the 4 charges. As indicaterd hereinabove, after departmental inquiry petitioner's services were terminated and the petitioner challenged his termination in the writ petitions as indicated herein above.. In the said writ petition apart from taking various grounds, two grounds raised by the petitioner were that the Director in the Directorate of the Employment and Training was the appointing authority of the petitioner and the departmental inquiry initiated by the Joint Director is unsustainable. It was also pointed out by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition that the termination of service of the petitioner by an officer subordinate to the Director is unsustainable. Both these grounds were rejected in the earlier writ petition and the termination was found to be proper. However, after dismissal of the writ petition on 14-07-2004 vide Annexure R-1 as the appellate authority has again modified the punishment order, the petitioner is before this court.