ANTAR SINGH PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 19.8.2013 issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby imposing major punishment of dismissal of service of the petitioner pursuant to a Departmental Enquiry. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, which is also dismissed vide order dated 30.1.2015.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer vide order dated 10.03.1995. Thereafter vide order dated 10.3.1995 the petitioner was transferred on deputation to the respondent No. 2/department as Sub-Engineer. The petitioner was a regular employee of the Department of Water Resources, Government of Madhya Pradesh. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 30.10.2004 alleging certain irregularities, which is said to have been committed by him in discharging in the rehabilitation work under Sardar Sarovar Project with effect from 1.4.2003 to September' 2004 under Narmada Valley Development Authority. Thereafter, the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 13.1.2005 by the respondent No. 2 under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to the "CCA Rules, 1966") without there being any order passed in terms of Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 1966 for holding a joint enquiry. As many as five charges have been levelled against the petitioner for not conducting survey and research work framing of proposal for technical sanction, non-maintenance of M.S. account, non-furnishing of monthly progress report in the Sub-Divisional office, not entering the relevant entries in the MAS book and submission of bill directly after verification, work got done without sanction from competent authority etc. The petitioner has filed reply on the said charge sheet on 31.1.2005. During the course of the departmental enquiry, only one prosecution witness Shri. O.P. Sharma, Sub-Engineer was examined against the petitioner and even the prosecution witness has not pointed out any fault in the working performance of the petitioner which may liable him to be proceeded against in the departmental enquiry, as has been done in the instant case. The other four witnesses whose name have been mentioned in the list of witnesses have not been examined. After conclusion of the Departmental Enquiry, the enquiry officer directed the parties to submit their respective written briefs. The petitioner had submitted his written statement on 16.11.2009 before the enquiry officer. Thereafter, the enquiry officer has prepared an enquiry report on 20.9.2011 and the said enquiry report was served on the petitioner vide letter dated 31.10.2011. The petitioner again submitted a detailed and comprehensive reply dated 25.11.2011 to the Secretary, Govt. of M.P., Narmada Valley Development Authority, Bhopal pointing out the infirmities held against him in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner was also called for personal hearing by the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Narmada Valley Development Authority, Bhopal on 30.4.2012. The Deputy Secretary, without considering the contention raised by the petitioner, has passed an order dated 19.8.2013, whereby the petitioner was punished with major punishment of dismissal from service under Rule 10(9) of the CCA Rules, 1966. Being aggrieved by the impugned dismissal order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 24.9.2013 before the appellate authority. The appellate Authority vide order dated 30.1.2015 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that a joint enquiry was held against a number of Sub-Engineers and one of the Sub-Engineers R.K. Yadav has preferred a petition bearing Writ Petition No. 13300/2015 before the Principal Seat of this High Court at Jabalpur challenging the same order of dismissal as well as the appellate order. The said writ petition was allowed by learned single Judge vide order dated 26.7.2018 and set aside the impugned orders. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also a similarly situated person and a similar order be passed in this petition also.