MOHAN SWAROOP SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order-dated 9.11.2001 � Annexure P/15 removing the petitioner from service on the basis of misconduct proved in a departmental inquiry; and, the order-dated 2.4.2002 � Annexure P/20, by which his appeal has been rejected, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER Mohan Swaroop Shrivastava was appointed on 22.4.1977 as a Clerk in the establishment of the District Court and between the year 1986 to 1990, he was working as an Execution Clerk to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pichor, District Shivpuri. In the said Court one Criminal Case bearing No.1/1994 (Old No.91/1981 � State Vs. Suresh) was pending. It was found that the records of this case were entrusted to petitioner Mohan Swaroop Shrivastava and the case was decided on 31.3.2000 by the court of competent jurisdiction. Evidence was recorded in this case in the year 1993 and after recording of evidence, it transpired that more than seven important documents that were filed alongwith the challan were missing from the records. The records that were found missing were a case diary, certain fraudulently obtained receipts, a sealed envelope, an open envelope, certain original receipts and an envelope containing signature of the accused person Suresh and others. During the time of recording of evidence, it was found that the original documents are not available. Based on the aforesaid when a complaint was received, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 2.5.1999 vide Annexure P/1, and thereafter a preliminary inquiry was conducted into the matter. In the preliminary inquiry, the Additional CJM, Pichor found that the records were entrusted to the petitioner, he was in custody of the same and prima facie it was found that he is responsible for the act complained of. Based on the report of the preliminary inquiry � Annexure P/7 dated 9.4.99, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P/2 on 27.5.99. Petitioner submitted his reply to the same and finding the reply to be unsatisfactory one Shri S.R. Dohre, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pichor was appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted his report � Annexure P/5 to the competent authority on 13.12.2000. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the impugned action taken. The appeal filed by the petitioner having been rejected, this writ petition is filed impugning the action in question.

(3.) IT was thereafter argued by learned counsel that the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected vide order � Annexure P/8 in a very casual manner, the same does not show application of mind and, therefore, the entire action stands vitiated. Finally, it was argued by learned counsel that the stage of preliminary inquiry the important documents were not given and the preliminary inquiry conducted without taking note of the charge given by the petitioner to Shri Ram Biharilal Dohre was unsustainable. In the end, Shri N.C. Beohar argued that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer is perverse and based on such a perverse finding, the action taken is unsustainable.