B.S. JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had filed OA No.2679/1991 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short "the Tribunal") challenging the order dated 14.2.1990 (Annexure A -10) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Balaghat. On abolition of the Tribunal the said OA has been transferred for adjudication to this Court and on its transfer has been renumbered by Writ Petition No.706/2003.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Forester in the Forest Department of the State of M.P. While he was posted as Range Assistant, Chouria circle in East Lanji a charge -sheet dated 11.8.1989 was issued to him levelling following two charges against him.

(4.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record pertaining to disciplinary inquiry produced by the respondents at the time of hearing. 2007(1) JLJ 429=(2006)3 MPHT 93]. 7. The respondents placing reliance on rule 15(2) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short "MPCCA Rules, 1966") contended that the disciplinary authority if disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge is required to record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. In the circumstances it is contended that having regard to the rule position there is no infirmity in the decision of the disciplinary authority and it was not obligatory on the part of disciplinary authority to have given opportunity to the petitioner to submit representation before disagreeing with those findings of the Inquiry Officer. 8. On going through the inquiry report dated 6.12.1989 submitted by the Inquiry Officer before the disciplinary authority, I find that the Inquiry Officer in its aforesaid report reached to the conclusion that both the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. The disciplinary authority after going through the aforesaid inquiry report recorded his disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and on appreciation of evidence, recorded in the inquiry, held the petitioner guilty of both the charges and imposed the penalty as aforesaid. 9. Rule 15(2) of the MPCCA Rules, 1966 on which the respondents have placed reliance reads as under: