KRISHANLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was working on the post of Deputy Drug Controller in the Public Health and Family Welfare Department of the State Government. A charge sheet dated 05.10.87 (Annexure A/1) was issued to him levelling charge of unauthorised absence and of non compliance of the transfer order dated 13.06.1985. His reply to the charge sheet was not found to be satisfactory and as such the respondents conducted departmental inquiry against him. After recording of the evidence the Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report on 07.05.1993 (Annexure A/5) holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. A copy of the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner along with show cause notice dated 22.07.93 (Annexure A/4). The petitioner submitted a reply/representation (Annexure A/5-A) against the said inquiry report. The respondents after considering the petitioner's representation held that the grounds raised by him in his representation to hold him not guilty are not satisfactory and it was observed that as the petitioner had already retired on 30.04.1997 in the circumstances the order dated 20.10.1996 by which it was decided to impose penalty of withholding of two increments with non cumulative effect could not have been passed against the petitioner, being of no effect upon him, the petitioner has been inflicted penalty of reduction of 30% of his pension for a period of one year invoking rule 9 (2) of the M.P.Civil Service (Pension) Rule 1976 (for short Rules) vide order dated 15.02.02 (Annexure A/6).

(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order (Annexure A/6) the petitioner filed Original Application No.251/02 before the M.P.State Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') Bench at Indore. On abolition of the Tribunal the said O.A. has been transferred to this Court for its adjudication and has been renumbered as W.P.No.1565/03.

(3.) The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 05.10.87. The order of penalty of withholding of 30% of pension for one year was passed on 15.02.02 that is nearly five years after his retirement on 30.04.97. In the circumstances the impugned penalty order being in violation of Rule 9(4) of the Rules is illegal. He placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court passed in case of State of M.P. and others v. R.L.Ogle and others 2006(3)JLJ218 = 2006(1) MPLJ 412 and on the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in case of B.P.Shrivastava v. State of M.P. 2008(1)MPWN47 to contend that the respondents had no right to direct reduction of the petitioner's pension having regard to the fact that the inquiry was not completed by the respondents within a period of two years and the order of penalty has been passed much after the period of two years from the petitioner's date of retirement from service.