O P PANDEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Commercial Tax Officer in the commercial Tax Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1990. He was promoted as Assistant Commissioner in the year 2007. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and a penalty of censure was imposed on him under Rule 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short "the Rules" ).

(2.) AGAINST the order of censure passed by the Commissioner, commercial Tax Department, the petitioner filed an appeal before the principal Secretary, Commercial Tax Department. The Principal Secretary commercial Tax Department dismissed the appeal by order dated 27-1-2001. The petitioner then filed a review against the order of the Appellate Authority before the Governor on 29-6-2001. The review has not been disposed of as yet and is still pending. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that his review petition has not been entertained because of a circular issued by the General administrative Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh on 20-1-2000 that no review can be entertained against an order passed by the Appellate authority. Aggrieved, he has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution praying for inter alia quashing the circular dated 20-1-2000 issued by the General Administrative Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh and for direction to the respondents to decide the review petition of the petitioner.

(3.) ON 23-10-2008, after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner the Court directed notice to be issued to the respondents and called upon Mr. V. K. Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the state to obtain instructions in the matter. Although Mr. Shukla prayed for some time to file a reply, we are of the considered opinion that the question raised in this petition being purely one of law involving interpretation of Rule 29 of the rules which provides for review, a reply on facts is not necessary and the matter can be disposed of on an interpretation of Rule 29 of the Rules.