VISHWANATH DUBEY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter pertains to imposition of penalty in a departmental inquiry of deduction of 10% of the amount from pension of the petitioner for three years by respondent No.1 vide order dtd. 3/6/2009. Assailing the aforesaid order, the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner, who was posted as Assistant Commandant in 5th Battalion, S.A.F., Morena stood retired from service on 31/7/2007. Prior to his retirement, a complaint was made by respondent No.3 about illegal availing of the claims of Traveling Allowance (TA) and Dearness Allowance (DA) bills claimed by the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commandant, 13th Battalion, S.A.F., Gwalior and in furtherance thereof, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner, wherein three charges were levelled against him. The petitioner denied the charges, but instead of dropping the inquiry, a regular inquiry was decided to be conducted and after completion of the inquiry, a report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, while recording the findings of the petitioner being guilty of the charges. Vide memo dtd. 4/10/2007, the Disciplinary Authority forwarded the inquiry report to the petitioner seeking his representation. In response thereof, a detailed representation was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, but without considering the said representation, the impugned order dtd. 3/6/2009 was passed whereby the penalty of deduction of 10% of the amount from pension of the petitioner for three years was inflicted. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Shri Jitendra Kumar Sharma - learned Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Nikhil Bhatele - Counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that by way of non-speaking order and without considering the contents of the representation, the Disciplinary Authority had went on to impose the penalty as aforesaid, which since is violation of principles of natural justice deserves to be quashed.