KANCHAN SINGH RAJPUR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner is challenging the pregnability of the order (Annexure A-1) passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Sukhtawa Kshathipurthi Vanikaran Mandal, Hoshangabad as well as the appellate order dated 20-1 -1993 (Annexure A-2) passed by conservator of Forest.

(2.) THE unfolded facts are that the petitioner was serving under Forest Department. However, vide order dated 10-5-1990 (Annexure A-4) which was passed in pursuance to order No. 470, dated 30-4-1990 the services of petitioner alongwith several persons were deputed to Narmada Ghati Vikas Pradhikaran. On account of certain misconduct committed by petitioner, he was charge-sheeted by the borrowing department and ultimately the punishment order was also passed by the borrowing department and the departmental appeal was also rejected by the same department.

(3.) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the borrowing department, i. e. , Narmada Ghati Vikas Pradhikaran was competent to conduct the departmental enquiry, however, the said department or any officer of the said department was not having any jurisdiction to pass punishment order and the punishment order, if any, ought to have been passed by the lending department. In this regard, learned Counsel has placed reliance to Rule 20 of the M. P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 (in short 'the Rules' ).