K C BHARGAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was originally filed as Original Application in the M.P. Administrative Tribunal Bench at Bhopal. After closure of the Tribunal, the Original Application has been transmitted to this Court and has been registered as writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner in this petition has challenged the validity of order dated 7.1.1998, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment has been dismissed as also the order of punishment dated 14.12.1996, by which the petitioner was compulsory retired after holding a departmental enquiry. Mainly, it is contended by the petitioner that while he was in service, working on the post of Motor Transport Officer, was assigned security duty in the convoy of the Chief Minister of the State. He suffered an injury on his left leg on account of accident, while performing such duties and, was admitted in the hospital and was referred by the State Government to the Bombay Hospital where he was treated. The petitioner was advised to take complete rest. In fact, on account of such injury and infection, the petitioner suffered a permanent disability of shortening of the leg. He was not in physical condition to carry out the order of transfer issued in his respect. The fact that the petitioner was under treatment and was not physically fit to resume the duty, was well within the knowledge of the respondents, yet when an order of transfer was issued, even after submission of his application, instead of taking a proper action, a show cause notice was issued to him calling his explanation as to why he should not be punished for disobedience of the orders of the superior authorities. The reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner and instead of closing the matter, the charge sheet was issued to him and thereafter a departmental enquiry was conducted. The petitioner has made the application that the doctors who have treated him be called as defence witnesses for the purposes of proving his defence, but this was not done and without affording any opportunity in that respect, a severe penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to prove his defence in appropriate manner. The enquiry itself was not conducted in appropriate manner, inasmuch as, the appointment of Presenting Officer was not done. The enquiry officer himself examined the witnesses which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. In fact, the statutory provisions of the relevant Act and the Rules were not complied with and an enquiry report was drawn. Though these facts were brought to the notice of the respondents authorities, yet instead of exonerating the petitioner, such a punishment was imposed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was not considered in accordance to the provisions of the Rules and, as such, the appeal of the petitioner was also not properly decided. On this count, it is contended that the orders impugned are bad in law and are liable to be quashed.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondents in the Original Application before the Tribunal contending that the procedure as laid down under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules of 1966 for short) was duly followed. It was proved that there was a noncompliance of the statutory provisions of the M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 and, as such, the petitioner has committed a misconduct. Since such a misconduct was proved taking into account the gravity of the charges levelled on the petitioner, the order was rightly passed by the disciplinary authority. The appeal of the petitioner was appropriately considered and thereafter the order was passed by the appellate authority. It is further contended by the respondents that the scope of judicial review is restricted to the effect whether any bias was caused to the petitioner or not and since it has been held by this Court in catena of decisions, based on the decisions of the Apex Court, no prejudice or bias was caused to the petitioner on account of non-appointment of Presenting officer in the departmental enquiry. It is further contended that the petitioner was liable to bring his own defence witnesses as attempts were made by the enquiry officer to summon those witnesses for the purposes of examining the defence of the petitioner. Since the petitioner utterly failed to produce the witnesses, the evidence available on record was rightly appreciated by the enquiry officer. Since the complete enquiry was conducted in accordance to the provisions of the CCA Rules, the order impugned has rightly been passed. There is no force in the claim made by the petitioner and his petition is liable to be dismissed.