KANAK KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition while praying for quashment of order dtd. 10/10/2011 (Annexure P/1), order dtd. 25/09/2014 (Annexure P/2) and order dtd. 03/11/2014 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner arrears of salary for the period of suspension commencing from 05/08/2008 to 10/10/2011 along with interest.

(2.) The petitioner herein while working against the post of Criminal Reader in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, was caught red handed in a trap case accepting bribe of Rs.10.00 from complainant-Ghanshyam for adjourning the case of the complainant which was pending in the concerned Court. Record reveals that on 21/07/2008, the petitioner was caught red handed by the Vigilance Authority of this Court and, the petitioner was found in possession of amount in his pocket for which no reasonable explanation was furnished by him.

(3.) Resultantly, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1966, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1966' for the sake of brevity), an inquiry was initiated in which as many as three charges were leveled against him. The charges against the petitioner were to the effect that on 21/07/2008, he accepted bribe/illegal gratification of Rs.10.00 with an assurance that the case of the complainant which was pending in the Court of Shri Mahmood Khan, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur will be adjourned for next date. The second charge was to the effect that on the same day, an amount of Rs.525.00 was found in upper pocket of his shirt which was obtained from the other litigants whose cases were fixed on that day before the concerned Court. The charge number three was to the effect that despite 19/07/2008 being a non-working Saturday as many as 29 cases were fixed by petitioner for hearing with an oblique motive to obtain illegal gratification. Ultimately, upon initiation of departmental enquiry, witnesses were examined including the complainant and the inquiry officer submitted his report in which he concluded that all the charges were found to be proved. On the basis of inquiry report, disciplinary authority vide order dtd. 10/10/2011 (Annexure P/1), imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement in accordance with Rule 10(7) of the Rules of 1966. It was further mentioned that for the period of suspension, the petitioner would not be entitled to get any other amount except subsistence allowance. The order of compulsory retirement dtd. 10/10/2011 was challenged by the petitioner by filing of appeal. The appeal of the petitioner also came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 25/09/2014 which is contained in Annexure P/2. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a Review Petition that also faced dismissal with modification and the Appellate Authority exonerated the petitioner as regards charge No.2 and 3, but affirmed the penalty as regards charge No.1 vide order dtd. 03/11/2014 (Annexure P/3). Thus, challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed this petition.