SHYAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the grievance of the petitioner is that while he was in service, a charge sheet was issued to him on 2nd July, 2009 by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa for the alleged misconduct stating that while he was working as Block Medical Officer in Community Health Centre, Mauganj, he had not maintained the registered in appropriate manner for extending the benefit of 'Janani Suraksha Yojna' to the beneficiaries. The other charge was that the amount, to be paid immediately to the beneficiaries, was not disbursed. As a result, the delay was caused in making payment for a period of six months. The last charge against the petitioner was that even after grant of sanction, though cheques were prepared, the amount was not disbursed to the women beneficiaries, who were entitled to receive the said benefit. It was alleged that the petitioner had not honestly discharged his duties, which earned the bad name to the State and that the conduct of the petitioner was violative of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

(2.) A reply was filed by the petitioner stating that he was not the drawing and disbursing authority and, therefore, he was not supposed to maintain the accounts, as was alleged against him. As soon as the sanction was granted, the moment the same was received, the amount was required to be disbursed by the drawing and disbursing authority and since the cheques were not prepared by the said authority, the payment could not be made to the beneficiaries within time. Lastly, it was contended that the moment the sanction was received and the cheques were delivered, the same were disbursed by the petitioner. It was contended that in fact the allegations, which have been levelled against the petitioner, were required to be levelled against Dr.Mamta Soni and Dr. S.N. Singh, who were responsible officers. Since the petitioner was only a Block Medical Officer, he was not in a position to interfere in the work of the aforesaid senior officers.

(3.) It appears that after conducting enquiry, since the petitioner had retired from service, the matter was referred to the State Government for imposition of proper penalty. After considering the aforesaid facts and the findings recorded against the petitioner, by the impugned order, 50% of the pension of the petitioner has been withheld in exercise of powers under Rule 9(1) and (4)(c) of the M.P. Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Against this order, the present writ petition has been filed.