NARENDRA PRASAD AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition No. 1130 of 2020 being aggrieved by the order dtd. 29/1/2015 whereby a penalty stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect was imposed and also against the order dtd. 15/11/2019 whereby the appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) At the relevant point in time, this petitioner was posted as Excise Sub Inspector. He was served with show cause notice under Rule 16 of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 seeking an explanation that in the year 2007 upto the month of August, 40 Court Cases were registered, but in the year 2008 upto August, only 9 court cases have been registered which is 80% less to the preceding years. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice in detail and prayed for closure of the proceedings. The reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and vide order dtd. 29/1/2015 the punishment has been imposed with a stoppage of one increment with a non-cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed vide order dtd. 15/11/2019. Hence, this present petition.

(3.) The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders interalia on the ground that the reply submitted by him has not been considered properly while imposing the punishment. According to him, in the year 2007-2008 he registered 40 court cases and due to the said strict action there was a reduction in crime in the year 2008, hence, fewer cases were registered. If there was no crime and less criminal cases were registered, then that should be a matter of reward rather than punishment. Hence, the punishment is not justified, as no misconduct has been committed. Hence, prays that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.