DULI CHAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking quashment of a charge-sheet issued to the petitioner on 12.4.2005, proposing to conduct an inquiry as contemplated under Rule 14 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 [hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1966 ], petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner was working as an Assistant Surgeon and was posted in the Jail Hospital at Jabalpur. According to the petitioner, he was suffering from acute rheumatic arthritis and, therefore, was unable to perform his duties properly. According to him in the year 1990-91, he submitted application for leave in the prescribed proforma for the period from 8.8.1990 to 31.11.1990 total 115 days, and thereafter from 1.9.1991 to 24.11.1991 total 85 days. Similarly, he sought leave for 274 days during the period 1.12.1990 to 31.8.1991. Applications in this regard are filed as Annexures P/1, P/2 and P/3. It is the case of the petitioner that the applications were not decided by the competent authority inspite of recommendations made by the Superintendent Central Jail, Jabalpur videAnnexure P/4, but all of a sudden the entire period was treated as dies non and an order was passed on 6.9.1997 vide Annexure P/7, treating the entire period of 476 working days as dies non on the ground that petitioner was on unauthorized leave. This order dated 6.9.1997 Annexure P/7 was challenged by the petitioner by initiating proceedings under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2302/1998 and after winding up of the Tribunal matter stood transferred to this Court and was registered as W.P.No.12902/2003. In the said proceedings initiated by the petitioner, it was his case that treating the period as dies non has adverse consequence on the service of the petitioner, the same amounts to punishment, is stigmatic in nature and, therefore, the action impugned without notice to the petitioner and without conducting a proper departmental inquiry, is unsustainable. It seems that the aforesaid contention of the petitioner found favour before this Court and on 15.7.2004 an order was passed, and a Bench of this Court found that the period of 476 days has been treated as dies non , the order is stigmatic in nature and, therefore, action taken without conducting a departmental inquiry is not proper and on such ground the order was quashed. After the order was quashed the matter was referred to the competent authority and the proposed departmental inquiry is now initiated with regard to the same allegations of unauthorized absence for the period of 476 days, as indicated hereinabove.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the charge-sheet issued to him is unsustainable and in support thereof the following contentions are raised: