RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, MPRVB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the action of the respondents in proposing to recover from the petitioner's pension a sum of Rs.5,37,401/ -, and contending that the recovery is in contravention to Rule 9, of the MP Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Pension Rules') and that action is being taken without hearing the petitioner and without due concurrence and approval of the Governor.

(2.) SHRI Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that initially a departmental inquiry was conducted and an order ­ Annexure P/1 was passed on 27.10.2005, terminating the services of the petitioner and ordering for recovery of Rs.5,37,401/ -. However, this order was not implemented and now by the impugned order action under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules is being taken that also without concurrence and approval of the competent authority i.e... the Governor. Accordingly, challenge is made to the impugned action.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. From the records it is clear that on account of certain embezzlement done by the petitioner while working as an Accountant in the Mandi Samiti. Departmental inquiry was conducted and based on the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner in the inquiry, initially a proposal was made and an order was passed terminating him from service and recovering the loss caused i.e... the sum of Rs.5,37,401/ -, as is evident from Ramesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Managing Director, MPRVB and others Annexure P/1. However, as the termination of the petitioner could not be ordered due to his attaining the age of superannuation, the order was modified and vide Annexure P/3, the action is taken for recovery of the amount from the petitioner and in doing so, the provisions of Rule 64 and 65(2) of the Pension Rules as is applicable to an employee of the Mandi, is being enforced. Annexures R/1/1 and R/1/2 are the extracts of the Rules under which the impugned action is taken. During the course of hearing, two grounds were canvassed. The first ground canvassed was that concurrence and approval of the Governor as required under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules is not obtained. This contention is wholly misconceived. Petitioner is not a civil servant nor is an employee of the State Government. That being so, concurrence and approval of the Governor is not required. Petitioner being an employee of the Krishi Upaj Mandi, action has been taken in accordance to MP Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 and MP Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam 1972 "Rajya Mandi Board Seva Viniyam, 1988". The action is taken against the petitioner after due approval of the Managing Director of the Marketing Board and the Managing Director being the competent authority, there is no illegality in the matter. Rule 9 so far as it applies to the petitioner will remain substituted and instead of the Governor, approval of the Managing Director ­ the competent authority, is obtained, which fulfils the requirement of the Rule. That being so, the first ground canvassed does not call for any consideration.