KESHAV PRASAD PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment order dated 06.01.2003.

(2.) SHRI Arun Katare, Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 17.08.2001 Annexure A/4. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply Annexure A/ 8. The allegations were denied by the petitioner. A departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner by appointing an enquiry officer. In the departmental enquiry, petitioner deposed his statement Annexure A/10. The enquiry officer submitted his report and found that the charges are partially proved against the petitioner. Enquiry officer found that after July 1995 the petitioner recommended a daily wager for appointment despite ban which runs contrary to Department's circular. However, a specific finding is given that along with the petitioner, the then District Convener is also responsible. It was held in the report that petitioner is responsible for improper payment of salary because of aforesaid illegal appointment of daily wager to the tune of Rs. 29,540/ -. The petitioner submitted his detailed representation Annexure A/12 against the enquiry officer's report. The disciplinary authority by order dated 06.01.2003 inflicted the punishment of recovery from salary with further punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for one year. Petitioner preferred an appeal, but same was not decided.

(3.) MRS . Sangeeta Pachauri, Dy. Govt. Advocate opposed the prayer and submits that this Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence and reweigh the same. There is no procedural flaw in the enquiry which warrants interference by this Court.