N S CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was originally filed as Original Application No.224/2001, before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal and has come on transfer to this Court after abolition of the Tribunal and is registered as writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner has called in question the order dated 8.8.2001, by which a penalty of withholding of one increment of pay without cumulative effect is imposed on the petitioner after giving him a show cause notice and conducting a summary enquiry under the provisions of Rule 16 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for brevity). It is contended that the petitioner was due to retire in the month of March 2002 and juniors to the petitioner were being promoted as Chief Engineer. To forestall the claim of the petitioner, such a device was hatched up and a frivolous show cause notice was issued to him. The fact remains that the allegations which were made, were not relating to any action taken by the petitioner nor was he responsible for any such act, yet to debar him from the promotion such a devise was hatched up. It is contended that in fact tenders were floated for purchase of cement for construction work in four sub divisions of Sagar Circle of Public Works Department. On receipt of the tenders, the Purchase Committee evaluated the same. With the approval of the Purchase Committee, the order was placed for purchase of the cement. The purchase order was given to an authorised dealer of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited. The petitioner was at the relevant time posted as officiating Superintending Engineer in Nowgong Circle of the Public Works Department and had nothing to do with the purchase of material at Sagar Circle, which is a totally separate establishment. Only an endorsement of the minimum rate was done and, therefore, it could not have been said that the petitioner was responsible for any misconduct. This being so, it is contended that only with a view to restrain the petitioner from getting the promotion on the post of Chief Engineer, the show cause notice was issued on 4.9.1997 along with another person, who was working as Superintending Engineer at the relevant place.

(3.) On receipt of the notice of the writ petition, the respondents have filed their return and have contended that a penalty was imposed on the petitioner and, therefore, he was not found fit for promotion. Against the order of supersession, the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as Writ Petition No.13936/2007(S), in which a detailed return has been filed and the same is adopted for the purposes of hearing of the present petition. It is contended that the cause of action for filing of the present petition is lost and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. It is seen that the return of the Original Application was not filed by the respondents, therefore, the return filed in Writ Petition No.13936/2007(S) is considered in which the submissions have been made by the respondents that the enquiry was rightly conducted after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner and a penalty was imposed. According to them, the order of penalty was rightly issued and, therefore, no interference in the present petition was called for.