NITYANAND MISHRA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed in public interest and grievance of the petitioner is that various Food Inspectors in the District of Rewa who have been arrayed as respondents No.5 to 20 have committed various irregularities in conducting proceedings for seizure of sample, their analysis by the public analyst and in taking action for prosecution of the accused under the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) Respondents have filed a detailed reply and we find that requisite action has been taken in the matter, enquiries have been conducted and in the cases as referred to by the petitioner, action has been taken for rectifying the defects that were committed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and thereafter, now after enforcement of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 which came into force w.e.f. 2011 preventive steps have been taken for taking action and for ensuring properly prosecuting the matter. The detailed compliance report has been submitted by the parties on 25.1.2016 which goes to show that action for rectifying the defects pointed out by the petitioner has been undertaken. As far as taking disciplinary action against the private respondents No.5 to 20 are concerned, respondents have stated that all these officers were working during the period 2007-2010, they have been retired from service and now due to the statutory bar created after such a long period of time, the Discipline Rules do not permit to initiate any action against them. However, if petitioner points out instances of illegality any officials who is still in service, action would be taken against them.

(3.) Shri Swapnil Ganguly points out that petitioner has pointed out instances of illegality against 15 officers who are arrayed as Respondents No.5 to 20 in the writ petition. All these officers have retired and with regard to irregularities committed by them remidial action has been taken but for taking disciplinary action against these officers, now after their retirement, no action can be taken as the Discipline and Appeal Rules do not permit for taking action against a retired employee after a particular statutory period of time, which is over now.