R.D. KAROLIYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 18/10/2003 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect has been passed. The petitioner further aggrieved by the order dated 25/05/2004 by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed summarily.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that petitioner was initially appointed as Revenue Inspector in Bastar on 06/11/1978. Thereafter, he was posted in the office of Settlement Officer, Gwalior w.e.f. 1993. Vide order dated 06/09/2000 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer,(Group No.4) Morar, Gwalior, the petitioner has been entrusted with the work of village "Lakhnauti Khurd". The petitioner was ordered to attend the field work and preparation of record w.e.f. 07/02/2000. On 03/03/2000, Assistant Settlement Officer, Gwalior issued a notice to the petitioner to the effect that on 04/02/2000, the petitioner was directed to visit gram Lakhnauti Khurd but he did not visit there and remained absent in office as well as meeting held by the Settlement Officer on 10/02/2000. The petitioner filed reply to the notice on 15/03/2000 explaining all the allegations levelled against him. On 04/04/2000, the petitioner was suspended for the reason of wrongly reporting the work of settlement due to absence during the field work. Charge-sheet was issued on 02/05/2000 along with list of documents and witnesses. The petitioner filed reply within prescribed time reserving the right to give detailed reply as and when occasion arose. The petitioner denied all the three allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, on 06/06/2000, Assistant Settlement Officer, Gwalior was appointed as Enquiry Officer, was the same person who had issued notice Annexure- P/1 and prepared Panchnama regarding alleged absence of petitioner, therefore, on 19/06/2000 the petitioner made a request to change Enquiry Officer. On 31/07/2000, an order was passed amending the earlier order, whereby both the Enquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer were changed. Meanwhile, vide order dated 18/10/2000, order of suspension was revoked and petitioner was directed to be posted at his previous place of posting. Thereafter, Collector, Gwalior, vide order 01/05/2002 changed the Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier Enquiry Officer appointed was the same person who had issued notice Anneuxure P/1 and prepared Panchnama for the absence of petitioner at village "Lakhnauti Khurd". Enquiry Officer who was changed earlier was appointed as Presenting Officer later on, therefore, departmental enquiry proceedings stood vitiated. As per the order dated 01/05/2002, Kishor Kanyal was appointed as Enquiry Officer and under Rule 14 (8) (31) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules. Shri P.K. Bhatnagar was appointed as Presenting Officer but during the course of enquiry, the Presenting Officer was transferred and in his place Shri Umesh Shukla, Assistant Settlement Officer, Gwalior was appointed as Presenting Officer. It is pertinent to mention here that Shri Umesh Shukla was the original complainant and the author of Panchnama dated 29/02/2000 prepared in village Lakhnauti Khurd. Moreover, he was having inimical terms with the petitioner. Hence, because of involvement of this very officer, the whole enquiry got vitiated, therefore, the impugned order liable to be quashed.