RAMNATH SINGH SIKARWAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has called in question the disciplinary proceedings, punishment order and appellate order in this matter. The grievance put forth by Shri Rana is that the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary proceedings along with Shri Lalji Sahai Bhatnagar and Shri S.P.Singh. A joint enquiry was conducted and a common enquiry report, Annexure A -7, dated 5.11.1997, was prepared. Thereafter, the petitioner and other two persons were punished. The petitioner's appeal was rejected on 20.8.1999. In the meantime, Shri Bhatnagar aforesaid also filed OA No.2705/1999 before M.P.Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal). It was canvassed by him before the Tribunal that he and Shri S.P.Singh were subject to common enquiry and the appellate authority should have examined the aspect of punishment on Shri S.P.Singh while deciding the appeal of Shri Bhatnagar. The Tribunal accepted the said contention, set aside the appellate order and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority to decide it. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner deserves similar treatment.

(2.) SMT . Nidhi Patankar, learned Government Advocate, opposed the prayer on the ground that OA itself was beyond limitation and, therefore, same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In addition, it is contended that the petitioner has no case.

(3.) A perusal of the enquiry report shows that the petitioner was sailing in the same boat with Shri Lalji Sahai Bhatnagar and Shri S.P.Singh. A common enquiry report about the said three delinquent employees was prepared on 5.11.1997, Annexure A -7. The punishment and appellate order are based on this enquiry officer's report. Since Shri Bhatnagar succeeded on 27.8.2002 from the Tribunal to the extent indicated above, I am not inclined to dismiss this petition on the ground of delay and laches. Petitioner has already filed an application for condonation of delay. The said application is allowed.