RAMSWAROOP SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as Assistant Superintendent of Land Records and posted on deputation as Naib Tahsildar, was proceeded in a departmental proceeding sometime in the year 1988 and the proceedings continued after his retirement. He stood superannuated on 30th April, 1992. The proceeding was closed after due enquiry and the competent authority under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 [in short 'the Rules'] imposed punishment withholding of 10% pension permanently by order dated 12.11.1997. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid order. It is relevant to state here that during the pendency of this proceeding the original writ petitioner expired in the year 2001 and his legal heirs have been brought on record.

(2.) THOUGH Mr. Ramesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner initially made endeavour to assail the order of punishment on the ground that the entire departmental proceeding was founded on the base that the petitioner had passed illegal, irregular and incorrect orders and in that backdrop no proceedings could be initiated. The learned counsel commended me to the number of documents and the evidence brought on record to build the edifice that it is a no case of evidence. Mr. S.K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the State submitted that the order has been passed by the competent authority on behalf of the Governor, vide Annexure-A/16 and it is not a case of no evidence and the conclusions have been arrived at by ascribing proper reasons.

(3.) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. C.C. as per rules.