RAMESH KUMAR NIGAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order of punishment of censure dated 20th July, 2000 contained in Annexure A-1.

(2.) THE petitioner was posted as Joint Director of Agriculture (Soil Conservation) (Senior Class-I) in the Directorate of Agriculture, Bhopal during 26-8-1992 to 18-4-2995. He was sent on deputation to the M. P. State Co-operative Apex Bank, Bhopal on 6-4-1995 without his consent and was relieved by the respondent No. 2 Director of Agriculture on 18-4-1995. It is put forth, there was no formal order posting the petitioner in foreign service. The petitioner stood superannuated on 31-12-1995. It is contended that there was no demand from the Apex Bank to the Government for deputation of its officer from Agriculture Department, but as the petitioner was not appreciated by many higher ups, he was lent on deputation. It is set forth that an unfortunate situation cropped up as a consequence of which he could neither remain in the Department of Agriculture nor could he join in the Apex Bank.

(3.) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, in this obtaining factual matrix, he approached the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in O. A. No. 204 of 1995 assailing the validity of the order of deputation. The order of deputation based on 6-10-1994 was cancelled by order dated 24-6-1995 while the matter was subjudice before the Tribunal. It is put forth that the respondent No. 1, the then Secretary, Department of Agriculture could not tolerate the brunt of this kind of situation and he put the petitioner under suspension immediately on 24-6-1995 without any valid reason. The petitioner being aggrieved, assailed the order of suspension in the Tribunal in O. A. No. 317 of 1995 and the Tribunal passed an order of stay of suspension and eventually decided in favour of the petitioner. After losing before the Tribunal, the authorities did not immediately reinstate the petitioner but ultimately reinstated on 30th December, 1995, a day before his date of superannuation. The order of reinstatement was not served on the petitioner and that was done after his retirement. It is contended that the period of suspension was not regularised and to avenge themselves, the respondents issued a charge-sheet against the petitioner on 22-12-1995. The petitioner submitted his reply and categorically denied all the charges. The reply was not considered and an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 12-2-1998 ignoring the provisions contained in M. P. Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Pension Rules' ). A reference has been made to the Government circulars how the departmental enquiry ought to be completed within a specified period. It is also contended that there was delay in serving of the charge-sheet; that relevant documents were not supplied; that the enquiry officer was appointed in an absolutely belated manner and the Enquiry Officer submitted his finding after two years on 24-5-2000. It is averred that eventually the petitioner was punished by order contained in Annexure A-1, dated 20-7-2000 with Censure. It is averred that the Enquiry Report was not given to the petitioner and, therefore, the order of punishment is bad in law. It is also put forth that the order of punishment of censure after superannuation is unjustified and illegal.