R.K.SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially this case was filed before Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench Jabalpur and was registered as O.A. No.398/1993. After abolition of Tribunal, case was transferred to this Court and accordingly, it has been registered as W.P. No.8020/2003.

(2.) Initially petition was not filed against any specific order. It was the case of petitioner that by letter dtd. 24/9/1991, he came to know that he is facing a departmental enquiry in regard to Thanwar Project and one more enquiry has been proposed. He was informed that Department is trying to dispose of departmental enquiry as early as possible and only thereafter, case of petitioner shall be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Engineer. It was the case of petitioner that no action was taken to finalize the departmental enquiry and State Government promoted Executive Engineers, who were juniors to petitioner w.e.f. November, 1990 to August 1991. Another DPC was held in month of January, 1992, in which again petitioner was denied promotion. It was learnt by petitioner that on the basis of pendency of departmental enquiry, State Government has kept the recommendation in a sealed cover. DPC again met on 21/1/1993. As per assessment of petitioner, fate would be the same. Thus, it was the case of petitioner that respondent cannot keep recommendation in sealed cover, right from year 1990. They were bound to open sealed cover and act on the recommendations irrespective of enquiry mentioned in letter dtd. 24/9/1991. In view of subsequent event, petition was subsequently amended and it was pleaded that in respect of first charge sheet dtd. 15/12/1989, no enquiry in terms of rule 14 or 16 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules, 1966 was conducted. Only a show cause notice was given to petitioner on 4/12/1990 and State Government had proposed the punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect for one year. The matter was sent to Public Service Commission (PSC). PSC advised State Government to exonerate petitioner and not to punish him. Although, respondent has not supplied the copies of opinion given by Public Service Commission but they should produce the same in the Court. Since persons, who were biased against petitioner, were interested to punish him, therefore, matter was again referred to PSC with a proposal that censure be imposed upon petitioner. PSC agreed that censure is not a punishment but would come in way of promotion of anybody and accordingly, by order dtd. 29/1/1993, punishment of censure was given to petitioner, which was received by him on 20/5/1993. Petitioner preferred an appeal against order of censure. In the meantime, State Government issued an order dtd. 1/6/1995 in which it was clearly mentioned that State Government has taken a decision to quash the penalty imposed against him provisionally and sanction thereon was formally required from the Cabinet. Accordingly, petitioner was promoted as Superintendent Engineer w.e.f. the date of promotion of his juniors on ad hoc basis. This decision was taken on previous recommendation made by Public Service Commission, which required the State Government to exonerate the petitioner. Thereafter, matter was referred to PSC at appellate stage. PSC did not agree to it. PSC wanted that punishment should remain and there was a tug of war between State Government and PSC, which ended in sufficient detriment to the career of petitioner. The Cabinet did not give the formal sanction for allowing the appeal and quashing the punishment of censure in view of the opinion of PSC and accordingly, appeal was dismissed. It is the case of petitioner that opinion of PSC was not binding on the State Government. What is required in law was consultation with PSC. It cannot be interpreted like effective consultation under Constitution. Once State Government had already taken a decision to promote petitioner as Superintendent Engineer, then it should have risen to occasion to uphold its own decision.

(3.) Another departmental enquiry was started against petitioner with second charge sheet dtd. 14/3/1992. In this case a detailed enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found that no charge was proved against petitioner and State Government has passed the final order on 18/7/1995, whereby petitioner was exonerated of the charges. It is the case of petitioner that censure is not a punishment and therefore, he was entitled for promotion to the post of Superintendent Engineer from the date when his juniors were promoted.