Y S SACHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 4-5-2000 (Annexure P-23) by which a minor penalty of withholding of one increment has been imposed upon the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Land Acquisition and Land Valuation Officer in Jabalpur Development Authority. On 26-11-1993 a charge-sheet was served upon him. The charge was of negligence and dereliction of his duties inasmuch as the petitioner did not disclose that the land which was being given on lease to Agarwal Sabha was never acquired by the Jabalpur Development Authority and for this reason the lease-deed executed in favour of the lessee was subsequently required to be cancelled. The act or omission of the petitioner was said to be contrary to Rule 3 of the M. P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. A departmental enquiry on this charge was held. The enquiry officer by his report (Annexure P-18) held the petitioner guilty of this misconduct. The enquiry officer found that the file relating to the issue of the advertisement was handled by the petitioner as Land Acquisition and Valuation Officer and he had issued the order dated 22-7-1991 in that file and at that time it was his duty to put on record that this land has never been acquired by the J. D. A. A show-cause notice alongwith a copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner on 12-5-1998 and he submitted his representation. Though the show-cause notice proposed the penalty of removal from service a very lenient view was taken and a minor penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. It was thus a flea-bite punishment and even that has been challenged by the petitioner through this writ petition. The petitioner was under suspension from 27-10-1993 to 7-8-1997 and as per impugned order he is to be paid subsistence allowance only for that period.

(3.) THE petitioner's case is that the penalty has been imposed by the Chief Executive Officer and he had no authority to do so as the petitioner was a Class-II Officer. It is submitted that the charge levelled against him was not proved. The petitioner has claimed full salary for the suspension period.