BHAVANI SHANKAR SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is received on transfer from M.P. Administrative Tribunal. O.A.No. 1069/2000 was filed by the petitioner challenging the punishment order Annexure A-1 dated 29.1.2000. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 8.12.1994 followed by a supplementary charge sheet dated 20.1.1995. In total eight allegations were made against the petitioner. The singular contention raised by Shri Kirar is that in the departmental enquiry adequate, sufficient and reasonable opportunity of defence was denied to him which runs contrary to the established principles of natural justice and against the mandatory provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. To elaborate, Shri Kirar submits that the petitioner submitted his reply and denied the charges in toto. Thereafter, by order dated 7.1.1995 (Annexure A-15) the Presenting Officer and Enquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner participated in the initial dates of the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer. The petitioner by letter dated 29.3.1995 (Annexure A-41) informed the department that he is leaving the headquarter to attend Durgapooja . The same was followed by another communication Annexure A-42. The petitioner left the headquarter for Sabalgarh where he became sick. He sent information by way of telegram dated 15.4.1995 to Collector, Datia with simultaneous telegram dated 15.4.1995 to the Presenting Officer, Datia informing that he is unwell and prayed for time till he becomes fit. In Annexure A-43 and A-44 he made a request for postponing the departmental enquiry on the ground of his illness and the same was followed by two registered letters Annerxure A-45 containing same request dated 21.4.1995 and Annexure A-6 dated 2.5.1995.

(2.) In turn, the enquiry officer fixed the matter on 18.4.1995. Since the petitioner was not available on that date, it is clear from enquiry report (internal page 2) that he proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner on 18.4.1995. The petitioner after becoming fit preferred a representation to the enquiry officer (Annexure A-49) dated 28.6.1995 and in that representation enclosed all the telegrams, registered letters and the medical certificates and made a request for recalling the ex-parte order and permit him to participate in the enquiry. However, no heed was paid to petitioner's said representation because the enquiry officer had already prepared his enquiry report on 15.5.1995 and sent it to the disciplinary authority. In turn, when the enquiry officer's report was provided to the petitioner for his comments by communication dated 14.1.1998 (Annexure A-52), the petitioner immediately submitted his detailed reply and apprised the disciplinary authority that ex-parte proceeding was bad in law and again made a request to recall the ex-parte order and permit him to participate in the enquiry so that he can adequately represent himself. This reply to I.O's report dated 29.1.1998 was not accepted by the disciplinary authority, who passed the punishment order dated 29.1.2000 whereby imposing punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum for a period of five years without cumulative effect with further direction that during the currency of punishment petitioner shall not be paid any increments. It is held that the petitioner shall be entitled for subsistence allowance already paid and no further dues shall be payable to him for the intervening period ie., from the order of suspension to the date of imposition of punishment.

(3.) Shri Kirar raised a singular contention that since the petitioner repeatedly informed the respondents by telegram and registered letters that he was unwell, in all fairness the enquiry should not have been proceeded ex-parte. He placed reliance on Rule 14(11) and 14(20) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 in this regard. He also placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in Dr. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi Vs. Union of India and others, 1994 2 SCC 416 and prays for holding that the enquiry was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice.