AJAY SINGH BHADOURIYA Vs. M.P.HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issues involved in W.P.No. 802/08 and W.P.No. 2342/07 are interrelated and, therefore, with the consent of parties, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:-

(2.) PETITIONER was working as Security Assistant in the respondent department. He was served with a charge-sheet Annexure-P/11 on 14/06/2000. The following charges were made against the petitioner. .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(3.) SHRI B.P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision making process adopted by the department was neither inconsonance with the provisions of MPCS (CCA) Rules, 1966 nor as per the principles of natural justice. He submits that reply of the petitioner has not been considered. Enquiry Officer's report does not contain any reasons and it is a one sided report based on the charge- sheet only. In addition, he submits that the disciplinary authority in its order admitted that a permission for additional construction was given by order dated 22/08/2007. The original record is not available in the office. He submits that permission order was never cancelled. If record is not traceable in the office, petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he is responsible for non-availability of the record in the office. In addition, he submits that the disciplinary proceedings are bad in law. The findings are perverse and based on no evidence. The punishment order is wholly perverse and uncalled for and unwarranted.