WP 23434.03
Writ Petition No. 23434 of 2003
06-09-2010
None for the petitioner, despite of the SPC issued to the
petitioner.
Ms. Jailaxmi Ayyer, learned Panel lawyer for the respondents/
State.
Heard.
Petitioner though challenges the order No.
Estt./10/DE/156/95 dated 31-01-1995 endorsed to the petitioner by
letter dated 31-05-1995 passed by the Director, Panchayat and Social
Welfare; however, the order is not on record. And though it is
mentioned in the petition that the same is filed as Annexure A-1.
Whereas, Annexure A-1 is the order dated 17-02-1993 passed by the
respondent No. 3 inflicting upon the petitioner the penalty of
reversion from the post of Accountant to the Upper Division Clerk.
From the pleadings it appear that the order dated 31-01-1995 is the
appellate order whereby the penalty of reversion imposed on the
petitioner has been upheld.
As unfurled from the record, the petitioner was subjected to a
major penalty charge sheet under Rule 14 of the M. P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 on 01-06-1992.
Following charges were levelled against the petitioner :-
“(v) Jh ckykizlkn] tqxyfd’kksj lkgw] ueZnkizlkn oekZ] y{ehukjk;.k
‘kekZ] d`”.kdqekj Bkdqj] lqUnjflag /kkdM] cl#n~nhu] fy;kdyvyh]
NksVsyky Bkdqj] /kuflag /kkdM ,oa vjfoUn dqekj feJk vkfn xzke iapk;r
lfpoksa ds izLrko euekus <ax ls fcuk fdlh tkap ds dysDVj ds
vuqeksnu gsrq izLrqr fd, x,A tcfd lacaf/kr lfpo vuqaeksnu ds ik= ugha
FksA
WP 23434.03
(c) Jh veksyflag Bkdqj] fnukad 3-1-81 ls vLFkk;h fyfid ds in
ij fu;qDr gksrs gq, Hkh ofj”B vf/kdkfj;ksa dks /kks[kk nsdj] dysDVj ls
Jh Bkdqj dk lfpo ds in ij fnukad 2-6-87 ls vuqeksnu fnyk;kA
(l) laHkkxh; dk;kZy; Hkksiky ds v/nZ’kkldh; i= dzekad 3260
fnukad 21-7-87 Onkjk pkgh xbZ ,sals va’kdkyhu lfpoksa dh lwph ftudh
fu;qfDr fnukad 7-9-79 ds iwoZ gqbZ Fkh] ugha Hksth xbZA blh izdkj
laHkkxh; dk;kZy; Hkksiky ds i= dzekad 3380 fnukad 3-8-87 Onkjk pkgh
xbZ ,sals va’kdkyhu lfpoksa dh lwph ftudh fu;qfDr fnukad 7-9-79 ds
iwoZ ,oa i’pkr~ dh xbZ Fkh] ugha HksthA
bl izdkj vkids Onkjk eq[; fyfid lg ys[kkiky ds inh;
drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu u djrs gq,] Lo;a dh LokFkZ fl/nh dk dk;Z fd;k
x;kA vkidk ;g d`R; e0iz0 flfoy (vkpj.k) fu;e 1965 ds fu;e-3
(1)(nks) ds foijhr gksus dh otg ls n.Muh; gSA”
The petitioner, as the record reveals, did not file any reply to
the charge sheet; leading to holding of a departmental enquiry by
appointing an enquiry officer on 25-06-1992. That before the
appointment of enquiry officer and after the issuance of charge sheet
the petitioner vide his application dated 06-06-1992 demanded
certain documents; whereon, he was informed by letter dated
16-06-1992 that, being not relevant, the documents were not
supplied.
The enquiry officer furnished the enquiry report on
22-12-1992, wherein, the charges levelled against the petitioner were
found proved. Consequent whereon the show cause notice was
issued on 29-12-1992 as to why the petitioner be not removed from
service. The petitioner replied on 11-01-1993.
The disciplinary authority thereafter vide order dated
17-02-1993 reverted the petitioner from the post of Accountant to
the Upper Division Clerk.
An appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed
WP 23434.03
by order dated 31-01-1995.
The petitioner though challenges the impugned order on the
ground that he has been punished without affording the petitioner
any opportunity of hearing. That the relevant documents were not
supplied. That he was not afforded any opportunity to engage the
defence counsel. That was not afforded any opportunity to cross-
examine the witnesses and that he was not afforded an opportunity
to produce defence witnesses.
These averments in the petition when adjudged on the
touchstone of the facts on record would negative the allegations that
the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity to defend.
On receiving the charge sheet the petitioner vide letter dated
06-06-1992 demanded certain documents which as per the
respondents letter dated 16-06-1992 was replied that the same were
not relevant. The petitioner in the petition has also not shown any
relevancy, as also how the petitioner is prejudicially affected by non
supply of document.
Apparent it is from the charge sheet that the list of relevant
documents were annexed therewith. It is not the case of the
petitioner that the documents enlisted with the charge sheet was not
supplied. Therefore, in absence of any cogent material on record it
cannot be held that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner for
non-supply of documents sought by application dated 06-06-1992.
In respect of the contention regarding non granting of
assistance of a defence counsel and non-examination of witnesses. It
appears from the reply filed by the petitioner in response to show
WP 23434.03
cause notice and the enquiry report, that the petitioner being well
versed with the procedure and the facts of the case ably defended
himself without any shortcomings/wanting of defence assistance. In
respect of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the
defence evidence; it is for the petitioner to have availed the
opportunity, when the same was readily available to him. The
material on record nowhere shows that the petitioner was
specifically precluded from having the defence assistance, the
defence evidence and the cross-examination of prosecution
witnesses.
In conclusion since the findings recorded against the
petitioner is based on cogent material and pertinently addressed at by
the disciplinary authority, no interference is warranted with the
punishment which is based on such findings.
In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV)
JUDGE
sc