STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. B.P. GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 calling in question tenability of an order dated 20.10.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.14853/2007 (s) by which the respondent Dr. B. P. Garg has been directed to be reinstated with 50% backwages.

(2.) Respondent Dr. B. P. Garg was working as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari. It was alleged against him that while working as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari by presenting two documents in a fraudulent manner, he had managed to get compassionate appointment for his daughter Smt. Rakhi Shukla. Accordingly a charge sheet was issued to him making the aforesaid allegation and based on the finding of guilt recorded in the departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service. Appeal filed before the Disciplinary Authority of the Department was also dismissed and therefore, the matter travelled to the Writ Court. The Writ Court examined the matter in detail and found that the allegations alleged are not established. Only on the basis of suspecion the action is taken and directed for reinstatement with 50% back wages after quashing the order of termination.

(3.) Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General took us through the allegations levelled in the charge sheet, the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the observations made by the Public Service Commission in the recommendation made, the disagreement to the same by the Disciplinary Authority and the reasons which weighed with the disciplinary authority for imposing the punishment of dismissal from service and argued that finding of guilt having been proved in a properly conducted departmental enquiry, the writ Court cannot interfere into the matter by appreciating of evidence. It was emphasized that in appreciating the evidence and recording a finding to say that the allegations are not completely proved but it is only based on suspecion, the Writ Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction and therefore, Shri Jain argues that it is a fit case where appeal should be allowed and the order of Disciplinary Authority upheld.