Y A BAPAT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original petitioner, an Overseer/sub-Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department, was put under suspension while he was working at Samnapur, District Mandla in the year 1973 on the basis of initiation of a departmental proceeding against him. As the enquiry proceeding did not see its ripenees, he approached the M. P. Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (in short) in O. A. No. 524 of 90. After abolition of the Tribunal, the matter has been transferred to this Court.

(2.) IT is contended in the petition that despite his sincere and unblemished service in the post of Overseer (as at the relevant time the post of Sub-Engineer was designated as Overseer) he was put under suspension on 27-8-1973 vide Annexure A-1. No charge-sheet was submitted within a period of 45 days nor was it approved by the State Government within 90 days as contemplated under Rule 9 (2b) of the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short 'the Rules'); and for that reason, the order of suspension had lost its force. It is urged that as the order of suspension became non-est, the original petitioner was entitled to be automatically reinstated in service. After the charge-sheet was supplied to him, he submitted his explanation putting forth the real position how his acts did not invite the wrath of departmental proceeding. Despite the said show cause, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the enquiry continued in spite of the fact that there are certain circulars issued by the State Government to conclude the Departmental Enquiry within a period of one year. In the year 1977, the original petitioner was issued a notice to show cause for the purpose of proposed punishment and he was given 15 days time for submitting his explanation. The original petitioner filed his show cause but no final order was passed and the original petitioner waited for the result of the departmental enquiry. The original petitioner was expecting that the fortune would visit him by conclusion of the departmental enquiry or by revocation of the order of suspension but nothing substantial happened. The original petitioner submitted series of representations but the disciplinary authority maintained a sphinx like silence. As time rolled by, in the month of August, 1981, the original petitioner was summoned for an oral enquiry. For reasons best known to the authority, nothing fruitful happened with the passage of time and in the year 1987, the original petitioner was transferred from Manendragarh Division to Samnapur, District Mandla. It is contended in the petition that from the order of the transfer, it transpires as if he was treated as a regular employee and not as a suspended employee. It is urged in the petition that on 27-12-1989, the original petitioner was directed to remain present before the disciplinary authority for the purpose of oral hearing. The original petitioner in obedience of the aforesaid command remained present but he was not given hearing by the respondent No. 3. Thus, in essence, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents had not yet concluded the departmental enquiry and the original petitioner remained in a state of suspension for a period of 17 years at the time of the filing of the original application.

(3.) IT is relevant to state here that at the time of filing of the original application, the original petitioner sought quashment of the departmental enquiry on the ground that there had been inordinate delay in completion of the enquiry. At this juncture, it is seemly to state that during the pendency of the petition, the original petitioner breathed his last and his legal representatives got themselves impleaded in the petition. In this backdrop, prayer has been made for grant of arrears of salary and other reliefs.