STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 challenging the order dated 1.11.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5218/10(s) whereby the order passed in review by the appellate authority dated 19.8.2010 has been quashed.

(2.) IT is seen from the record that a charge sheet was issued initiating disciplinary proceedings on 21.2.2006 and the said proceedings were ended by passing the order dated 28.2.2007 (Annexure P/6) recording a warning against the petitioner closing the departmental enquiry. The State Government issued a show cause notice on 19.2.2008 (Annexure P/7) in exercise of the power of review with an intention to inflict the punishment of withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect. The reply to the said show cause notice was submitted and thereafter vide order dated 19.8.2010, the punishment of withholding of one increment with non- cumulative effect was directed. IT was urged before the learned Single Judge that the power so exercised by the State Government is beyond the period so specified under rule 29 (2) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1966, however the order so passed by the State Government after the said statutory period is not permissible. The aforesaid contention was countered but this court relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kaushlendra Singh Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. and another [W.P. No.1541/2011(s)] quashed the order passed by the State Government in exercise of power of review.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the record and also the provisions as contained under rule 31 of M.P. CCS(CCA) Rules, it is apparent that the State Government has been conferred with the power to relax the time limit for condoning the delay. On being asked by the court that while passing the order impugned the State Government has exercised any power as conferred under rule 31, thereupon the learned Government is unable to show any document or the material filed by him either before the writ court or before this Court. In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that while exercising the power under rule 29, the statutory limit of six months has been specified for review. If the said period of six months has elapsed and thereafter the power has been exercised then it is incumbent upon the State Government that while passing the order impugned the power under rule 31 to condone the delay has been exercised condoning delay. The aforesaid provision is expressly implicit on the Government to pass the order to condone the delay. Either in the order impugned or filing any document before this Court , it has not been stated that the power under rule 31 condoning the delay has been exercised by the Government.