POONA BAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are legal representatives of one late Ganesh Prasad Sahu who was served with a charge-sheet vide memorandum dated 14-8-1997 whereby he was required to submit his reply within seven days. Without waiting for the reply the disciplinary authority, as set forth, appointed an inquiry officer on 30-8-1997. Late Ganesh P. Sahu submitted his reply on 25-4-1998 and thereafter the inquiry was conducted. Inquiry Officer submitted the report holding the charges to have been proved. A notice to show cause was served on him proposing the punishment of removal and after submission of the show cause the disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the same awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 11-6-1998.

(2.) ACCORDING to the writ petitioners, in the reply to the show cause it was specifically pleaded by the employee that he was a heart patient and scheduled to retire on 31-8-1998. After coming to know about the order of compulsory retirement he breathed his last after expiry of seven days. It is contended that there was no evidence against him and the finding recorded by the inquiry officer and charges levelled against him were not proved. It is contended it was not proved that the said Ganesh P. Sahu had consumed liquor at the relevant time and misbehaved with the complainant inasmuch as he could not have consumed the being a heart patient and the treatment was in continuance. It is also putforth that there was no justification of awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement two months before his retirement as it did cast a stigma without any reason. Many an ascertain has been made relating to malafide in issuing the charge-sheet on extraneous pressure. In addition, it is urged that the respondent No. 3, namely, Superintendent of Police has no jurisdiction or authority to serve a charge-sheet to the Head Constable and, therefore, entire initiation of proceeding was ab initio void. It is also putforth that an appeal could not have been preferred because of the death of Ganesh Pr. Sahu and hence, the legal representatives preferred the present petition before the M. P. Administrative Tribunal. A prayer has been made to issue a direction for quashment of the impugned order contained in Annexure A-7 and further to treat the said Ganesh Prasad Sahu deemed to have been served till the date of his death with all consequential benefits.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the present petition has been filed on misconceived and misleading facts without any substance inasmuch as adequate opportunity was provided to late delinquent employee for submitting the reply to show cause and thereafter the inquiry officer recorded the finding. It is also putforth that the employee was afforded fullest opportunity for examination and cross-examination of the witnesses during the inquiry and hence, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority scanned the inquiry report in proper perspective and after being satisfied with the findings concurred with the same and accordingly proceeded to punish the employee and eventually punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed. It is the stand of the respondents that the disciplinary authority took a lenient view by imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and, therefore, no fault can be found with the same. Criticism has been advanced against the said Ganesh P. Sahu that he had not availed the opportunity of preferring of appeal which was an alternative and efficacious remedy.