PIYUSH VERMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition assails the order dated 3.8.2016 (Annexure P/7) whereby the Executive Engineer decided to cancel the earlier decision (Annexure P/6) dated 3.5.2016 whereby earned leave was sanctioned to the petitioner for 79 days i.e between 23.10.2015 to 9.1.2016. The impugned order dated 3.8.2016 is passed on the singular ground that while granting earned leave to the petitioner on 3.5.2016, the administrative instructions issued by Engineer-in-Chief (E-in-C) dated 16.8.2012 has escaped notice of the Executive Engineer. As per the said instructions of E-in-C, the leave can be sanctioned by E-in-C only. Thus, this error is sought to be rectified by issuing the order dated 3.8.2016. Consequential recovery is also ordered against the petitioner.

(2.) Shri Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner assails this order on three counts. Firstly, it is submitted that the impugned order entails civil consequences and such adverse order could not have been passed without following principles of natural justice. Secondly, as per the circular of E-in-C dated 16.8.2012 (Annexure R-3) also, the recovery should have been made from the officer posted in establishment section of the department. Lastly, he submits that M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 are statutory in nature. With the rules, a statutory schedule is appended which makes it clear that for Class-III employees, the Office Head has full powers to grant the earned leave. The Executive Engineer, being the Office Head has granted earned leave to the petitioner, a Class-III employee. Thus, by way of issuing executive instruction, the power given under the rules cannot be supplanted.

(3.) Per contra, Shri G.P.Singh, learned G.A. Supported the order. He submits that even if opportunity is given to the petitioner, the fate will be the same because the department is bound by the order of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in-C dated 16.8.2012 whereby permission of earned leave can be granted only by E-in-C. In addition, he tried to justify the impugned order on the basis of certain other reasons mentioned in the reply and such reasons do not find part of the impugned order.