P K RAJAPPAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was originally filed as Original Application No.567/2002 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal to this Court which came on transfer after closure of the Tribunal and is registered as writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner, who was working on the post of Assistant Engineer in Rural Engineering Services (hereinafter referred to as the RES for brevity) has approached the Tribunal by way of filing the Original Application, challenging the validity of order dated 13.10.1999, by which the petitioner was terminated from service after a departmental enquiry. It is alleged that when the petitioner was working as Sub Divisional Officer, RES at Chhindwara, a chargesheet was issued to him on 29.5.1992. It was alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioner has committed several misconduct enumerated in Charges No. 1 to 12 and it was said that a regular departmental enquiry in terms of provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) was to be conducted against him. After receipt of the charge sheet, a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner. All the allegations made in the charge sheet were denied and it was contended that in fact, one of the superior officer, who was posted in the said area, was prejudiced against the petitioner and, therefore, the charge sheet was issued against him. It is alleged that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the procedure laid down under Rule 14 of the Rules and a report was drawn. After furnishing a copy of the report, the explanation was called from the petitioner which he submitted before the authorities of respondent, but instead of considering the explanation of the petitioner, by order dated 13.10.1999, the penalty of termination was imposed on the petitioner. The period of suspension was also regularised treating it as spent on suspension as the regular salary of the period of suspension was denied to him. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said order of termination before the Governor of the State, but since the same was not decided expeditiously, the Original Application was filed. It is contended that the Collector of the district himself has noted down the fact that the petitioner has deposited the deficit amount and, therefore, a request was made for reinstatement of petitioner in service. This being so, it is contended that the order of penalty was bad in law and was liable to be quashed.

(3.) Upon service of the notice of the writ petition, the respondent has filed the return and has contended that appeal filed by the petitioner was considered by the appellate authority in terms of the provisions of Rules and vide order dated 13.7.2001, the said appeal was dismissed. Since the appeal itself was considered on merit and was dismissed after due appreciation of the enquiry record it cannot be said that the enquiry was improperly conducted against the petitioner and, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the petitioner could have been dismissed from service as well because of the seriousness of the charges levelled against him.