MANOHARLAL NEMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner a retired Joint Director of Public Instructions has approached the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, ventilating his grievance against the order dated 07.01.2002, by which a penalty of forfeiting 50% of pension of the petitioner permanently under the Provisions of Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') has been imposed after a departmental enquiry. The Original Application pending before Tribunal was transmitted to this Court after closer of the Tribunal and has been registered as a Writ Petition.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the petitioner while was working on the post of Joint Director at Jabalpur was approached by a delegation of Sub Teachers with a representation that those Teachers have completed the requisite years of service but were not being paid the salary in the regular pay scale. The petitioner was apprised of certain instructions issued by the State Government and, therefore, the petitioner directed that such Teachers be paid the regular salary. However, thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to different division of the State where the information was received by him that certain illegal payment of arrears of salary to such Teachers have been made which has caused loss to the State Government. This fact came to the notice of the petitioner from news published in the news paper. Certain information was sent by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Public Instructions. The representations were also sent by the petitioner. Since the petitioner was nearing to retirement, on his request he was posted at Jabalpur again.

(3.) It is contended by the petitioner that, just before few days of retirement the charge sheet was served on the petitioner making allegations that because of misconduct committed by the petitioner while he was working at Jabalpur on earlier occasion, the Government has suffered a huge loss and for the assessed loss, a departmental enquiry was to be conducted against him. Such a charge sheet was issued to him on 26.03.1992. The enquiry was made over to the Commissioner of Enquiries, the same was not conducted properly and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was found guilty of misconduct and it was again said that there was probable loss of Rs.65,11,618/- to the State. The petitioner was given a second show cause notice of which a reply was submitted by him but without appreciating the reply in appropriate manner, the order of penalty was issued. The said order was bad in law and was liable to be quashed.