SHAIL KUMARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order Annexure P-12 dated 26-02-2009 passed by the competent authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and the order Annexure P-14 dated 13-08-2009, passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner so also seeking quashment of charge sheet Annexure P-1 dated 20-11-1996 and inquiry report Annexure P-9, this writ petition was originally filed by late Triveni Singh. During the pendency of this writ petition, Triveni Singh had expired and therefore, the petition is being prosecuted by his wife the petitioner herein.

(2.) LATE Triveni Singh was working as a Cleaner in the establishment of the Agriculture Department and was posted in the Tractor Unit at Panna. On 10-06-2008 at about 7 in the evening he was found lying in unconscious state on the gate of the workshop of the Unit by Choukidar Gajadhar Sahu and various other employees. It was reported that he is unconscious and in intoxicated position and lying in a drunken state. When he was asked to be removed, it is indicated that he became violent with the co-employee , used certain abuses language acted in a manner which was unbecoming to a employee and he was pushed out from the work shop premises by the employees . Based on the same, a charge sheet was issued to him and apart from indicating the act committed by him on 10-06-2008, it was informed that in the past also he was found on duty after consuming of alcohol or intoxicating material and had misbehaved with the co-employee and co-worker for which once a departmental inquiry was initiated against him and vide order dated 09-08-2007 he was punished with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and thereafter similar act committed by him for more than 6 occasions between 2-0-01-1998 upto 12-06-2006 was indicated. Into the allegations levelled as indicated in the charge sheet an inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report and finding the allegations to be correct and based on the same, the punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed and challenging the same this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) SHRI S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents refuted the aforesaid and points out that the action has been taken against the petitioner on the basis of finding of guilt recorded in a properly conducted departmental inquiry wherein full opportunity was granted to the petitioner. Shri S.K.Singh took me through the statements of witnesses and cross examination of the witnesses by the petitioner and emphasized that merely because in their statement some witnesses in answer to one or two question either by the Presenting Officer of the Inquiry Officer have given some contradiction cannot be construed that the witnesses have turned hostile or are not supporting the case of the petitioner . Referring to the examination in chief of the witnesses and thereafter certain question in cross examination Shri Sanjeej Kumar argues that this court cannot read certain statements in isolation and hold that the charges are not proved. It is stated by him that the proceedings before this court are not in the nature of an appeal in the criminal case or in the civil matter, it is a writ petition wherein the tenability of the proceeding held before the inquiry conducted and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer is challenged and therefore, the evidence cannot be examined in the manner as done in a regular criminal appeal or civil suit, accordingly Shri Sanjeev Singh submits that the evidence available on record substantially indicates that the petition is guilty of the charge levelled against him and some minor discrepancy in the statement of witnesses cannot be construed to say that the witnesses have turned hostile and therefore, the charges are not proved. Shri S.K.Singh submits that the substance available on record indicates that Shri Triveni Singh committed the misconducts alleged against him, he was a habitual offender, repeating same act of misconduct on more than 6 occasions and therefore, action taken is proper, which does not call for interference.