B N VERMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts necessary for disposal of the present writ appeal are that a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 4-7-1995 and much before that, i. e. , on 21-6-1995 he was placed under suspension. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the allegations made and charges levelled against the petitioner. It also appears that another charge-sheet was again issued to the petitioner on 15-4-1997 (Annexure A-3/1) alleging inter alia that while functioning as Superintendent, Bapu Vimukt Jati Ashram, Raisen the petitioner defalcated scholarship amount of Rs. 13,500/- which was to be released in favour of 45 resident students. After considering the reply of the petitioner dated 9-5-1997 (in relation to the second charge-sheet) a departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. After recording the evidence the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The collector, Raisen, the Appointing Authority issued notice to the petitioner along with the copy of the enquiry report dated 22-11-1999, which was accordingly replied by the petitioner. The Collector, vide order dated 29-12-1999 (Annexure A-1) imposed capital punishment of dismissal against the petitioner. As the appeal proved futile the petitioner filed Original Application no. 1810/2000 before the M. P. Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Bhopal but on abolition of the Tribunal the matter came to this Court and was registered as w. P. No. 24992/2002. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition, therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ appeal.

(2.) SHRI Rai, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the enquiry Officer was appointed in relation to charge-sheet dated 4-7-1995 but the said enquiry was abandoned and the Enquiry Officer who was appointed to make enquiry into the first charge-sheet assumed jurisdiction to make enquiry into the charge-sheet dated 15-4-1997. The submission is that if the Enquiry officer was not appointed nor was authorized to make enquiry into the charge-sheet dated 15-4-1997 issued by the department then he was an authority which can be condemned as coram non judice and as the Enquiry Officer had no jurisdiction to make an enquiry, he could not submit his enquiry report to the collector and the Collector on the strength of such enquiry report could not award the punishment.

(3.) SHRI Rahul Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent/state, on the other hand placing reliance upon letter dated 21-8-1997 (Annexure A-5 in this writ appeal) submitted that the Enquiry Officer, Shri L. N. Sharma was appointed to enquire into the charge-sheet dated 15-4-1997, therefore, the submissions of the petitioner are patently wrong and are contrary to records.