NIRBHAY SINGH KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this petition has been listed today for final hearing, however, on the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, they are heard finally. The petitioner who was serving on the post of Forester has been dismissed from the service on account of mis-conduct of illegal gratification. According to the respondents, the petitioner took Rs. 20/- from Mawasi, Rs. 25/- from Bhojya, Rs. 15/- from Sundara and Rs. 10/- from Kishna, in total Rs. 70/- in presence of one Pannalal. Neither Pannalal nor these persons have been examined in the departmental enquiry. If that be the position, in my opinion, even if some person, namely Gumani, on the basis of hearsay evidence had said that the petitioner has taken Rs. 70/- from some persons, would not suffice. As the material witnesses whose evidence would go to the root of the matter have not been examined, in my opinion, the charge has not at all been proved and the finding recorded by the enquiry officer is perverse and as such the order passed by the disciplinary authority also perverse. It has been contended by Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the State that against the order of dismissal of service, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 48- A/87 in the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal which was dismissed on 21-6-1988 and because no appeal was preferred, therefore, this judgment has attained finality and therefore no relief could be allowed to the petitioner. The argument at the first blush, though appears to be quite attractive but on deeper scrutiny found devoid of any substance. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner by showing the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Civil Judge dismissing the suit as well as specific averments in reply to preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of the original application that the application for obtaining certified copy was submitted on 21-6-1988 and the copy was delivered on 6-8-1988. On receipt of the certified copy, first appeal was preferred before the Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal within the prescribed period of limitation which was returned to the petitioner vide endorsement dated 9-8-1989 for presentation before the Tribunal and hence the present original application was submitted. In this view of the matter, the preliminary objection which has been raised by Shri Agrawal is found to be devoid of any substance and the same is hereby rejected.

(2.) ON the basis of aforesaid premised reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that on account of perverse finding, the services of the petitioner were terminated.

(3.) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order of termination (Annexure A) and the judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Annexure B) are hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. It has been contended by Shri Shrivastava that today the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation. The respondents are hereby directed to make the payment of the petitioner till the date of his superannuation with all consequential benefits. Let the claim of the petitioner be finalised within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. C. C. as per rules.