NANHE BHAI RAIKWAR Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition assailing the legal validity of order dated 4-10-1997 by which a punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him as well as orders dated 22-1-1999 and 19-11-1999 by which the appeal filed by him and review application filed by him were dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts, necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was working as a peon in the Court of the District and Sessions judge, Damoh and at the relevant time was posted at Hata. On 3-7-1997, Civil judge, Class II, Hata made a written complaint in respect of the conduct of the petitioner to the District and Sessions Judge, Damoh alleging that the petitioner was in the habit of refusing orders, misbehaving and remaining absent from his duties. Pursuant to the complaint a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 7-7-1997 and a departmental enquiry was instituted against him. On 27-9-1997, the Civil Judge, Class II, Hata submitted a written application before the enquiry officer that the date mentioned in the written complaint be changed and, therefore, an amended charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 8-8-1997. On completion of the enquiry, in which all the charges were found to be proved, a notice on the enquiry report was issued to the petitioner on 2-10-1997 and, thereafter, by order dated 4-10-1997 a punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected on 22-1-1999 and the review application filed by the petitioner also suffered the same fate by the impugned order dated 19-1 -1999.

(3.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned orders and the punishment imposed upon him, has filed the present petition challenging the impugned orders on the grounds that the enquiry conducted against him is not in conformity with Rule 14 of the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1966, inasmuch as the petitioner was asked to submit a written submissions by the Enquiry Officer and not by the Disciplinary Authority, notices were not issued in accordance with Rule 30 of the Rules, 1966, that the disciplinary Authority while passing the impugned order dated 4-10-1997 has travelled beyond the charge-sheet levelled against the petitioner and that the petitioner was not given due and proper opportunity to defend himself by adducing evidence as provided by Rule 14 (17) of the Rules, 1966. The petitioner has also contended that there is no evidence on record to establish the charges against him and, therefore, the present case is one of no evidence and there is perversity on the part of the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the punishment and on the aforesaid grounds has prayed for quashing the impugned orders.