O.P.SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is transferred from MP Administrative Tribunal. By filing this petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the disciplinary proceedings, punishment, appellate and revisional orders.

(2.) THE petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 2.5.1992. He submitted his reply on 25.6.1992. Since the petitioner denied the charges, the enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer submitted his report before the disciplinary authority. In turn, the disciplinary authority issued a notice, Annexure A -20 dated 8.3.1994. After this show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply, Annexure A -21, running in 32 pages, along with certain enclosures. The disciplinary authority passed the punishment order dated 22.12.1995. Two increments of the petitioner were withheld with cumulative effect. Petitioner preferred appeal against this order, which was rejected on 14.6.1999. Thereafter, he preferred a revision before the State Government. The State Government by order dated 13.12.2000 modified the punishment by directing that punishment will be the same but without cumulative effect. This modification was done for the singular reason that before punishment the consent/approval of the Public Service Commission (PSC) was not obtained which is necessary for imposing major punishment. Thus, the nature of punishment was modified from major to minor.

(3.) PER Contra, Smt. Sangita Pachauri, learned Deputy Government Advocate, supported the order and disciplinary proceedings. She submits that full, reasonable and effective opportunity of defence was provided to the petitioner. No interference is warranted in the writ petition.