SHOBHA MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by way of filing the present petition before this Court has challenged the order of penalty dated 30.6.1992 which is Annexure P-22 to the petition. The petitioner also challenges the order Annexure P-25 to the petition dated 23.3.1993. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet. The copy of which is placed on record which is Annexure P-18 to the petition. In the said charge sheet, the charge against the petitioner is that the then Chairman Suraj Pal Pawan submitted his TA bills for the period May 1985 to May 1986 and alongwith the said TA bills certain receipts of payment which were made in relation to the vehicle taken on rent. It was suspected that vehicles which were mentioned in the receipts were not taxi. It was also suspected against the petitioner that the petitioner had written the said receipts in her handwriting while working as a Lower Division Clerk. The total receipts for total amount of Rs. 1,000.50 were prepared. The said receipts were submitted to the handwriting expert Shri C.T. Sarwate. The said handwriting expert has given his opinion that the aforesaid money receipts are false.

(2.) A departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. In the departmental enquiry no witnesses were examined by the management. More so the handwriting expert Shri Sarwate though submitted his report but was not examined in the departmental enquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report wherein the petitioner was held guilty of the charges and show cause notice was given to the petitioner. Thereafter, an order dated 30th June, 1992 (Annexure P-22) was passed wherein the petitioner was imposed a penalty of removal from service. The petitioner submitted a detailed appeal to the appellate authority and the appellate authority passed an order on 23.3.1993 which is Annexure P-25 to the petition whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by apex Court as reported in AIR 1999 SC 677 (Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police). On the basis of this, counsel submitted that a distinction has to be made in a case where there is some evidence and in a case where there is no evidence. In a case of some evidence, judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to reappreciate the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. He submitted that in a case where there is no evidence then in such a case the Court can look into the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and thereafter can pass an appropriate order. Counsel for the petitioner partly is correct in his submission that in the present case no evidence was recorded by the department in the equiry but it is not a case where there had been no evidence. The report of handwriting expert Shri C.T. Sarwate was available in the enquiry. The petitioner did not submit any application that she be given an opportunity to cross-examine the said handwriting expert. The handwriting report was a part of the enquiry proceedings which was relied upon and referred by the Inquiry Officer to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges. It is not a case of no evidence but it is a case where some evidence has been available in the inquiry, i.e., the opinion of the handwriting expert Shri C.T. Sarwate. The finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer cannot be sustained on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the handwriting expert Shri C.T. Sarwate and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer has relied upon the said report. In fact the Inquiry Officer should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the handwriting expert and thereafter would have relied upon the said report. In view of] this, the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice.