SURENDRA KUMAR JAGGI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has challenged the charge sheet, Annexure P-1, dated 8.7.2003. It is challenged on the ground that the allegation of the charge sheet pertains to the year 1985, when the petitioner passed an order on 13.4.1985 while working as Tahsildar.

(2.) Per Contra, Smt. Sangita Pachauri, learned Deputy Government Advocate, supported the charge sheet and submits that at this stage no interference is warranted by this Court. She further submits that in the revisional order dated 24.10.2000 there is a finding by the revisional court that the petitioner has not conducted proper enquiry and made an effort to give improper benefits to the non-applicants therein. Thereafter, the charge sheet is issued on 8.7.2003. The allegations against the petitioner are very serious and include the allegation of acting with ulterior motive to give benefit to Shripad and Amarsingh. Thus, it is not a case of merely passing a wrong order but a case which contains an allegation of passing wrong order with oblique motive. Lastly, she relied on the judgment in the case of Union of India and others Vs. K.K.Dhawan, 1993 2 SCC 56.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.