VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to an order dated 12/03/2018 passed by the State inflicting penalty of censure.

(2.) Relevant facts briefly are that, the petitioner is a member of Administrative Service. He was posted on deputation as Deputy Director, Madhya Pradesh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Bhopal between 04/10/2012 to 05/04/2014 (expect 04/03/2014 to 22/03/2014). On 27/11/2013, the petitioner was subjected to notice as to why an action be not taken against him for the non-collection of Mandi fees at inter-State Border Inspection Outpost Morena and of release of Trolley carrying 135 Sack Mustard without charging Mandi fees. Petitioner gave his reply on 12/12/2013. That, by order dated 09/06/2014, the Competent Borrowing Authority proposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect. The proposal was forwarded to the parent Department. The petitioner without waiting for any decision to be taken by the Competent Authority in parent Department, preferred an Appeal before the Board under Section 38 of Madhya Pradesh State Agriculture Marketing Board. The petitioner also sought direction vide Writ Petition No.824/2017 for early decision in Appeal. The petition was disposed of on 14/02/2017 with the direction sought. Consequent whereof, President, Madhya Pradesh Agriculture Marketing Board vide order dated 26/10/2017; whereby, the punishment order dated 09/06/2014 was set aside. Later on, another order came to be passed by the State on 12/03/2018; whereby, while acting upon the recommendation of the borrowing Authority, the petitioner is visited with the punishment of censure.

(3.) The order dated 12/03/2018 is being challenged precisely on the ground that once the Appellate Authority had set aside the order dated 09/06/2014, it was beyond jurisdiction of the State to have passed another order.