RAMKUMAR SAKHWAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Grade - III in the office of Tahsildar Ambah, District Morena. On 30/5/2008, petitioner was issued with one order whereby petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter, charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner on 3/7/2008 and petitioner has denied all the charges levelled against him and submitted a detailed reply and thereafter by order dtd. 23/6/2009, the Collector has revoked the suspension of petitioner. Thereafter, another order dtd. 26/10/2009 passed by Collector after considering the reply of the charge-sheet submitted by petitioner and charge-sheet whereby subsistence allowance has been allowed to the petitioner but other allowances for the suspension period has not been granted(Annexure P-6). Against that, petitioner has submitted an appeal before Commissioner and Commissioner has allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Collector. Thereafter, Collector passed order dated 2/4/5/2011, whereby the penalty of stopping two annual increments with non cumulative effect has been ordered. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Collector has not considered the facts and grounds mentioned in the reply submitted by petitioner and non speaking and unreasoned order the Collector has imposed punishment of two annual increments without cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has preferred appeal and appeal has also been rejected by Commissioner, Chambal Division by non speaking and unreasoned order without considering facts and grounds mentioned in the appeal memo. Counsel for petitioner further submitted that minor punishment has been imposed by respondents and it is settled position that once minor punishment has been imposed, salary and other allowances cannot be forfeited and further submitted that as Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority has not considered facts and grounds mentioned in the reply/appeal memo. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of punishment since petitioner was found guilty of dereliction of duties and therefore after ascertaining the charges it was found that petitioner had failed to discharge the duties, therefore, aforementioned orders passed by the authority is absolutely proportionate and warrants no interference. It is further submitted that the appellate authority has also examined the entire record and on perusal of the material, the order of the competent authority was affirmed by the appellate authority. Hence after having proper adjudication of the matter by the appellate authority nothing remains to be interfered in the present matter and petition prima facie being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the only scope of interference in the cases of punishment is to examine the manner in which departmental enquiry is conducted. In the present case, the departmental enquiry was conducted keeping in view of the norms of natural justice and fair play. On these grounds, he prays for rejection of this petition.