PREMLAL DWIVEDI Vs. MPSEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. R.N. Shukla, learned senior counsel along with Mr. R.B. Tiwari, advocate for the petitioner.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to paragraph 4 of the return filed on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the action taken against the petitioner was taken in accordance with the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 (in short 'the Rules'). It is further submitted that under the aforesaid Rules, there is no provision for review of the penalty which has been once imposed by the disciplinary authority. While inviting the attention of this Court to Rule 12(2) of the Rules, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the penalty of forfeiture of the retiral dues has not been provided as punishment in the aforesaid Rules therefore, the same cannot be imposed on the petitioner. It is also submitted that the order of punishment of reversion imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 6-5-2006 was already given effect to therefore, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed the enhanced punishment that too the one which is not prescribed under the Rules. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Union of India and others vs. Sharda Bai and others, 2012 4 MPLJ 649

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that against the impugned order an appeal lies therefore, the petitioner has an alternative remedy. However, the petitioner has approached this Court without availing alternative remedy. It is further submitted that since the petitioner had secured the appointment on the basis of fake documents, therefore, the punishment has rightly been awarded to the petitioner.