RAJ KUMAR JOUHARI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by order dtd. 26/10/1999 (Annexure-P-18) passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Morena (Disciplinary Authority), whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired and order dtd. 28/9/2000 (Annexure-P-20), whereby, appeal preferred by the petitioner to the appellate Authority has been dismissed. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has expired and, therefore, his legal representatives have been brought on record.

(2.) The facts of the case in short are that the petitioner at the relevant time, was working as Head Copiest in the Court of Shivpurkalan, District Morena. The petitioner was the President of Union of Class-III employees. On 5/2/1998, he was served with a show cause notice by the District and Sessions Judge, Morena, stating therein that in one objectionable pamphlet in the name of Vijay Kumar Garg was distributed by the petitioner to his fellow employee and the said pamphlet was also pasted at various places. The said pamphlets contained derogatory remark against Hon'ble the then Chief Justice and other Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner was called upon to explain his conduct as prima facie the same was found to be against M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1965' for short). The petitioner submitted his reply on 13/2/1998 denying all the charges and he pleaded his innocence. On 27/2/1998, the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner along with the imputation of charges, list of witnesses, list of documents etc. The petitioner replied to the said charge sheet on 5/6/1998. Being dissatisfied with the reply, so submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority appointed IV Additional District Judge, Morena, as enquiry officer and one Batham was appointed as presenting officer. The petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing. After enquiry on 25/9/1999 (Annexure-P-15), enquiry report was sent to the disciplinary authority. On 29/9/2019 (Annexure-P-16), the petitioner was served with the enquiry report and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from services under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1966' for short). The petitioner submitted his reply on 11/10/1999. The disciplinary authority vide order dtd. 26/10/1999, considered case of the petitioner and instead of awarding proposed punishment from removal of services, a penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed. The petitioner preferred appeal (Annexure-P-19) to the appellate authority, which has also been dismissed vide order dtd. 28/9/2000 (Annexure-P-20). Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant petition, challenging the order of penalty and order of dismissal of his appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is completely improper. There is no evidence against the petitioner to prove that he has distributed objectionable pamphlets. In absence of any material, order of penalty suffers from non- application of mind. He, therefore, submits that instant writ petition deserves to be allowed while setting aside the order of penalty.