SANAND SINGH SHRINET Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was filed as Original Application before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bench Jabalpur, which came on transfer to this Court after closer of the Tribunal and is registered as writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the validity of orders dated 24.12.1987 and 30.10.2000 by which a penalty after departmental enquiry was imposed on him under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (herein after referred to as 'Rules') and by subsequent order, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. Yet another penalty dated 03.07.1990 is also sought to be challenged by which the petitioner was reverted. Facts giving rise to filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner, who was at the time when original application was filed, working on the post of Forester in Flying Squad, Satna, was served with a charge-sheet for certain misconduct and it was said that an enquiry was to be conducted against him. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working in the Forest Division, Mandla. The charge-sheet was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, West Bastar Forest Division, Jagdalpur on 24.10.1980. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that certain recovery was made by the petitioner from some of the persons said to be encroachers on the forest land for which he was not authorized. In the second charge it was alleged that there was illicit felling of the trees within the range where the petitioner was posted and on account of illicit felling of trees, the Government has suffered a loss of Rs. 4,429.50. Out of this, the wood costing to Rs. 3,008.50 was illegally transported. A reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner and he demanded supply of certain documents. The enquiry was thereafter conducted and a report was drawn. In the enquiry report it was held by the Enquiry Officer that Charge No. 1 was found to be fully proved. As far as the Charge No. 2 is concerned, illicit felling of trees was found proved but financial loss caused to the State Government was not found proved. After submission of the enquiry report, the matter was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and a penalty of reduction of pay of the petitioner to the minimum of the pay scale for whole of service and a recovery of the loss caused to the State Government was imposed on him. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order and by subsequent order the Appellate Authority modified the order of penalty and imposed the penalty of reduction to minimum of pay scale for a period of five years. However, the order of recovery was not interfered. Another order which the petitioner has sought to challenge in this petition was issued on 03.07.1990, which cannot be looked into in this petition as the same was an order of reversion on account of cancellation of promotion.

(2.) The Tribunal entertained the original application and issued the notices to the respondents. A return was filed by the respondents contending inter alia that enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in lawful manner. He was informed about the date of hearing in the enquiry well within time by issuing several notices on different dates. Even the information sent by the department was duly received by the petitioner as is indicated from his acknowledgment but the effective defence was not produced by him in the enquiry. Ultimately after completing the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer reached to the conclusion that there was material available to hold that petitioner was guilty of the misconduct. When such a report was made available, the Disciplinary Authority decided the same after examining the enquiry report and given his findings as per Rule 15 of the Rules. There was no irregularity committed in conducting the enquiry and, therefore, interference in the order of penalty was not called for. It is further contended that when the appeal was preferred, the Appellate Authority properly examined the enquiry record and came to the conclusion that the misconduct of the petitioner was rightly proved but the penalty so imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was treated to be excessive or disproportionate and exercising the powers, the Appellate Authority has reduced the penalty in appropriate manner. Thus, it is contended that there is no wrong committed in the matter of conducting the enquiry and passing the order against the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is contended that there is no scope of interference in the order of penalty and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Though a rejoinder is filed by the petitioner but not much has been stated except reiterating the contentions raised in the petition. However, the petitioner has disputed the fact that he was given adequate opportunity of hearing in the departmental enquiry.