STATE OF MADHYA PRDESH Vs. YOGIRAJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assailing the order dated 14-11-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 386/2008.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge by the impugned order quashed the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent on the ground that the aforesaid order was not passed on the basis of screening of service record, but on a communication received from the Income Tax Department. The communication from the Income Tax Department was only an intimation with regard to the search and seizure conducted by it and informing the State government to take an action in this regard. The allegations in the said communication were serious in nature. The appellant though was initially suspended and a charge-sheet was issued to him prior to receiving the communication, but on getting such communication, the State decided to retire the respondent compulsorily, without conducting an enquiry on the basis of the charge-sheet which was issued earlier but based on similar charges. The learned Single Judge found that without concluding the enquiry and arriving at a logical conclusion in the enquiry, action taken by the appellant assuming the allegations in the communication by the Income Tax department to be correct, was nothing but an arbitrary action based on extraneous consideration. The learned Single Judge further found that there was prima facie record that the Income Tax Department conducted raid in the house of respondent's son and not in the house of the respondent and if this fact could have been considered by the State Govt. then there was no nexus between raid conducted in the house of the respondent's son and the respondent's involvement in the matter. Merely on the ground of intimation received from the Income Tax Department, the respondent could not have been retired compulsorily. The appellant ought to have proceeded with the enquiry of charges of similar nature in respect of which allegations were made in the intimation of the Income Tax Department. On this ground, the learned Single judge found that the order was in fact not in the public interest and the appellant was unable to make out a case against the respondent retiring him in public interest. On these grounds, the order was quashed with observations that the respondent was suspended by the appellant and a charge-sheet was issued against him, so the State is free to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and quashment of the order of compulsory retirement and the observations made in the order shall not be considered in any manner whatsoever in the departmental Enquiry. With the aforesaid order, the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the order of compulsory retirement Annexure P-l of W. P. No. 386/2008, dated 10-12-2007 was quashed. This order is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) SHRI Rahul Jain, the learned Counsel for the State, assailed the order on the grounds:-