Y YOHANNAN Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this intra-Court appeal preferred under section 2 (1) of the M. P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the appellant has called in question the sustainability of the order dated 10-11-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 6002/2003.

(2.) THE appellant entered the services in the Police Department as an L. D. C. on 5-5-1964 and was promoted to the post of U. D. C. with effect from 30-9-1983. He was posted in Central Police Motor Transport (for short 'cpmt') as UDC which is also known as Contingent Clerk. Three clerks, namely, Ravindra kumar, Om Prakash Shakya and Ms. Asha Manekar were working under him during the period August, 1985 to March, 1986 whereas he was only entitled to one LDC. However, whenever there was heavy work more hands were provided. Such L. D. Cs were required to pass the bills. Contingency section was a part of accounts Branch and the Accountant was the In-charge of the same having the supervisory control over the appellant and other clerks. The appellant was never declared the Incharge of contingency section at any point of time. While working the appellant learnt that some mischief was being done by O. P. Shakya in respect of passing of bills and, therefore, to satisfy himself he made an enquiry and thereafter moved a note-sheet on 17-7-1986 which was supported by the head Clerk and forwarded to the higher authorities by the Superintendent of police of CPMT Workshop. However, an enquiry was initiated against the appellant, O. P. Shakya and Ms. Asha Manekar by issuing a charge-sheet dated 7-5-1987. The appellant submitted his reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet on 18-5-1987. It is worth noting that Ravindra Kumar was already dismissed in another case. The appellant faced enquiry for the charge "in spite of being in-charge of the contingency section, the appellant seriously neglected his duties and responsibilities as a result of which, between the period August, 85 and March, 86, bogus bills were forwarded to the treasury, amount was drawn thereunder and payments were made. " Thus, the only charge against the appellant is failure to discharge the duties of supervisory control. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding the carelessness of the appellant towards his duties and responsibilities. The Deputy Inspector General of Police issued a show-cause notice dated 25-5-1989 to which the appellant submitted his reply on 2-6-1989. However, the respondent No. 4 passed the final order dated 8-9-1989 dismissing the appellant from service. Feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2 on 23-9-1989 who modified the punishment from dismissal from service to compulsory retirement with effect from 8-9-1989.

(3.) IT is averred that four persons were charge-sheeted, namely, the appellant, O. P. Shakya, Asha Manekar and Ravindra Kumar Singh and, therefore, joint enquiry ought to have been conducted against all of them in terms of Rule 18 of M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules inasmuch as Police Regulation are silent in this regard. The result was that all the aforesaid three persons whose bills were dubious have been allowed to go scot free and the appellant has been compulsorily retired. It is putforth that the appellant was never negligent towards his duties and responsibilities and even otherwise Upper Division Clerks never remain In-charge of a section. It is also putforth that the appellant demanded inspection of documents and supply of copies which were never supplied and the same were also not produced before the Enquiry Officer and hence, the defence of the appellant was highly prejudiced. It is also submitted that serial numbers were changed and interpolation were made by the aforesaid three persons and not by the appellant. The appellant also took objection with regard to conducting of enquiry by an officer subordinate to the Deputy Inspector General of Police.