HIMAYAT ULLAH LAKHNAVI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Himayat Ullah Lakhnavi, Chief Executive Officer of Mahidpur Municipality, was a member of the M. P. State Municipal Service (Executive) and has been removed from employment by an order dated 30-11-1976 (Annexure P-8) on proved misconduct in a departmental enquiry. His review application filed under section 332 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961, remains dismissed by the order dated 4-9-1981 (Annexure P-10) and, hence the present approach to this Court by filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing these orders.

(2.) A charge-sheet dated 15-5-1973 (Annexure P-1) was served on the petitioner alleging as many as five misconducts against him. The petitioner submitted his reply to these charges on 7-7-1973 and, thereafter, faced a departmental enquiry, held in accordance with M. P. State Municipal Service (Executive) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), framed under section 355 read with section 86 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Enquiry Officer found charges Nos. 1, 2 and 3 proved and the other two charges as not proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 28-1-1975 was served on the petitioner, proposing a penalty or removal from employment. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said notice and challenged the findings of the Enquiry Officer as perverse and unreasonable. He also submitted that the proposed punishment was harsh and excessive. The Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of material on record and after obtaining the opinion of the Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'P.S.C.') passed the impugned order removing him from employment. The Rules do not provide for an appeal against the order imposing any major penalty and, hence the petitioner submitted a review application under section 332 of the Act. It appears that the State Government, on a re-consideration of the matter was of the opinion that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was excessive and deserved substitution by a minor penalty. It further appears that by their letter dated 3-6-1978, the State Government proposed to re-instate the petitioner and inflict the punishment of stoppage of two increments for a period of one year. It also appears that this proposal was sent to the P.S.C. for obtaining their opinion. The P.S.C., by its letter dated 28-2- 1979 (Annexure R-6), did not agree with the proposed order of the State Government and advised that the review application be rejected. Consequently, his review application has been rejected by the order dated 4-9-81. This order contains no reasons and does not even state how the respondent State Government changed its earlier view.

(3.) The impugned orders are characterized as illegal and unconstitutional on grounds that (i) findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse, (ii) the enquiry against the petitioner was vitiated for non-supply of documents mentioned at serial Nos. 11 and 13 of Annexure P-2, (iii) while inflicting punishment, the P.S.C. appears to have taken into consideration the petitioner's service record, for which no intimation was given to the petitioner; and, hence, the punishment is not based on the charges as levelled, and (iv) the order passed in review proceedings contains no reasons and is apparently influenced by the opinion of the P.S.C. and is illegal.