SUSHIL RANJAN Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the charge- sheet date 24.4.2007, the punishment order dated 12.08.2013 (Annexure P/2) and the appellate order dated 03.06.2015 (Annexure P/3).

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 24.4.2007 wherein four charges were alleged against the petitioner. Petitioner denied the allegations and, therefore, an inquiry was instituted against the petitioner. After recording the evidence, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report and found that charge No.1 and 3 are proved whereas charge No.2 and 4 are not proved. Thereafter, the punishment order dated 12.8.2013 was passed whereby punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is inflicted on the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 19.2.2013 (Annexure P/7) which was partly allowed by appellate authority by order dated 3.06.2015 (Annexure P/3) and punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is modified as same punishment without cumulative effect.

(3.) Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on contradictory statements. By taking this court to the statement of P.W.3 Laxmi Prasad, P.W.5 Parmatma Singh and P.W.6 Prakash Mishra, it is contended that statement of Laxmi Prasad is based on so called information about release of tractor given by Parmatma Singh. However, statement of Parmatma Singh shows that at the time of alleged release of tractor, he was not available in the police station. P.W.6 Prakash Mishra also did not depose that he had heard the statement of Parmatma Singh about release of tractor on the direction of the present petitioner. It is submitted that despite these serious contradictions, the disciplinary authority agreed with the inquiry officer and imposed the impugned punishment. It is submitted that the appellate authority has not considered the grounds raised in the appeal memo.