RADHESHYAM SAINI Vs. STATE OF MP.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 21.9.1999, whereby the punishment of lowering down to the minimum of the scale for two years with no future adverse consequence has been imposed upon him, and the order dated 15.3.2001 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order imposing punishment has been dismissed.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, before this Court, is that the petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as a Warder in District Jail, Sagar was served with a charge-sheet on 30.1.1991 pursuant to which an enquiry was conducted against him and ultimately order dated 13.1.1995 was passed against him imposing a punishment of dismissal from service. The appeal, preferred by the petitioner, against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by order dated 19.10.1995 and, therefore, the petitioner being aggrieved filed a petition before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal which was registered as O.A. No. 881/95. This petition was ultimately allowed vide order dated 19.11.1997 by recording a finding that the disciplinary authority who had issued the charge-sheet to the petitioner was biased and, therefore, the impugned order of punishment was vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. The operative part of the Tribunal's order is in the following terms: "11. In view of the aforesaid judgment the grievance of the applicant regarding bias of the respondent No. 4, was considered who issued the charge-sheet and after considering the finding of the enquiry officer and considering the reply of the applicant passed the order of punishment (Annexure A-7). The same is violative of principles of natural justice. The complaint made by the applicant was of serious nature against the respondent No. 4, and subsequently after the complaint one more additional charge No. 7 was framed by him which goes to show that the respondent No. 4 was biased against the applicant. In the fact and circumstances of the case the respondent No. 4, ought to have kept aloof himself in the inquiry against the applicant. The order of dismissal was passed by the respondent No. 4, who was biased against the applicant. Therefore, the impugned punishment (Annexure A-7) is in violation of principles of natural justice. No person could be a judge of his own cause and no witness could verify that his testimony was true. Any person who had a personal stake in the enquiry must have kept himself aloof from the enquiry. Thus the order of dismissal (Annexure A-7), the order passed by the appellate authority (Annexure A-9), are liable to be quashed. 12. In In view of the above it is not necessary to consider other grounds raised by the parties. Accordingly, the application is allowed and dismissal order (Annexure A-7) and appellate order (Annexure A-9) are hereby quashed and the applicant be reinstated with backwages for 3 years as the case was not delayed due to any fault of the respondents. The respondents are free to make further enquiry in accordance with law, if so desired. No order as to costs.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the Tribunal had recorded a conclusion that the disciplinary authority was biased and had quashed the impugned order of dismissal from service, the entire proceedings conducted against the petitioner pursuant to the charge-sheet issued to him on 30.1.1991 stood quashed and, therefore, in case the respondent authorities wishes to proceed further against the petitioner, they should have issued a fresh charge-sheet, conducted a fresh enquiry and thereafter passed appropriate orders in accordance with law after following the procedure prescribed by Rules 14 and 15 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The petitioner further submits that the respondent authorities did not issue any show cause notice to the petitioner subsequent to the order of the Tribunal and did not give him any opportunity to submit his response before the subsequent disciplinary authority and directly passed the impugned order dated 21.9.1999 and, therefore, the procedure adopted by the respondents being contrary to the rules as well as the principles of natural justice, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. The petitioner has also submitted that the appellate authority while considering the petitioner's appeal has not applied its mind to the facts and documents on record and has not given any reason for affirming the order of punishment but has dismissed the petitioner's appeal simply on the ground of limitation and, therefore, the impugned order of the appellate authority also deserves to be quashed.