OP NEHRA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are as under:- The petitioner was served with a charge sheet (Annexure A/2). After a departmental enquiry, the petitioner was inflicted with a punishment of reversion from service. The petitioner preferred OA No.356/1998 before Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal by order dated 15.4.1998 recorded at the time of admission that petitioner had already preferred a departmental appeal which is pending and, therefore, it was directed that the competent authority shall dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of communication of the order. It was made clear that if the appeal is not decided, the applicant shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition before the Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Authority.

(2.) IN the present case the respondents in their reply have specifically stated that the appeal allegedly preferred by the petitioner was never served on the competent authority. A document dated 10.4.2001 (Annexure R/1) is also issued in this regard. The petitioner has not chosen to file any rejoinder to rebut these allegations. Petitioner has not filed any proof of filing of said appeal.

(3.) HOWEVER, despite specific query of the Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to demonstrate as to when enquiry proceeded ex parte against him. However, the return of the respondents (page 11 para 6.4) shows that enquiry proceeded ex parte on 10.6.1991. Petitioner relied on a order dated 24.5.1995 (Annexure A/14), whereby he was placed under suspension. A specific question was put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to how enquiry can be said to be vitiated for non-payment of subsistence allowance because enquiry, as per return, proceeded ex parte in 1991 whereas the petitioner was placed under suspension on 24.2.1995 as per Annexure A/14. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension in 1989 also, which is clear from the charge sheet. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate as to when that suspension of 1989 was revoked. Thus, the petitioner has not brought correct and complete facts on record.