LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-363

SAWAILAL JALON Vs. STATE OF MP & ANOTHER

Decided On February 20, 2018
Sawailal Jalon Appellant
V/S
State Of Mp And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition, whereby penalty for recovery of a sum of Rs.,40,487/- has been ordered from the pension of the petitioner in monthly instalments of Rs.1300/- per month in pursuance to the chargesheet issued on 09.12.1993 and the impugned order being passed after superannuation of the petitioner on 30.09.2002. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is in violation of the provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter for short 'Rules').

(2.) It is petitioner's contention that when the petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer, Nagaud during 1991, in relation to that work, a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner alongwith other Officers under the similar facts and circumstances. It is further submitted that copy of the chargesheet is Annexure P/2, in which there were allegations that he had forwarded proposals for various works under Jawahar Rozgar Yojna on the basis of the proposals presented by the Sub-Engineers without evaluating justification; this caused a doubt about his integrity. It was also alleged that against the instructions of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department dated 03.05.1989, the petitioner forwarded proposals for getting the work done through SubEngineers instead of Gram Panchayat and without there being any noting of the measurements in the Measurement Book, sanctioned the amounts as per the proposals of the SubEngineers showing gross dereliction of duty.

(3.) Petitioner submits that similar chargesheet was issued to one Shri J.P. Kori, Sub-Engineer and he had furnished detailed reply to the chargesheet, but without considering his reply dated 25.01.1995, inquiry was completed and the inquiry report was submitted on 22.08.2005 and 10.02006. Vide Order Annexure P/4, copy of this enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner and his comments were sought inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer had found the charges proved against the petitioner, but the petitioner submits that these charges were proved against the petitioner so as to protect SDO Shri S.K. Pal, and when his superior authority SDO has been exonerated, then the petitioner too should have been exonerated from the departmental enquiry treating him to be innocent. He claims parity with Shri S.K. Pal, who has been exonerated from the charges vide Annexure P/6. Vide order Annexure P/6, the State Government noted that Shri S.K. Pal was found lacking in performing the work of supervision of the work of his subordinates under the Jawarhal Rozgar Scheme, but since he was already visited with warning by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, therefore, enquiry was closed against him.