PISTA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 21.7.2004 (Annexure P-1). The original petitioner Jawahar Singh Rawat had assailed this order in this petition. During the pendency of the petition, Shri Rawat died and his widow Smt. Pista was inserted as legal representative. Jawahar Singh was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. In the departmental enquiry, the charges were found proved against him. Accordingly, by order dated 1.12.1998 Jawahar Singh was removed from service. Against removal from service, he preferred a departmental appeal. This Court in W.P.No. 1311/2003 directed the authorities to decide the appeal. In turn, the respondents considered the appeal and gave personal hearing to Shri Jawahar Singh. The appellate order is passed on 21.7.2004. The appellate authority/State Government opined that before inflicting the punishment of removal, full, reasonable and effective opportunity was not given to the delinquent employee. Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 was not followed. The punishment order is also hit by doctrine of proportionality. In the result, by order dated 21.7.2004, the punishment order was set aside and employee was directed to be reinstated. Lastly, it is directed that the intervening period (between termination to reinstatement) shall be treated as 'dies non'. This portion of the order whereby the period is treated as 'dies non' is called in question in this petition.

(2.) The singular contention advanced by Shri D.P.Singh is that the termination is held to be illegal by the respondents. No further enquiry is ordered. Once termination is set aside, petitioner's position is restored and, therefore, there is no justification in treating the intervening period as 'dies non'.

(3.) Prayer is opposed by Shri Raghavendra Dixit, Government Advocate. By taking this Court to various paragraphs of the return, Shri Dixit justified the action of the respondents.