SATYA PRAKASH VARSHNEY, JUNIOR ENGINEER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
LAWS(MPH)-1980-9-58
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on September 03,1980

Satya Prakash Varshney, Junior Engineer Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HANUMANT GOVIND NARGUNDKAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.R. Navkar, J. - (1.)The petitioner, by this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the orders of punishment passed against him after holding a departmental enquiry against him. In particular, he wants that the order of punishment passed against him and marked as Annex. J. on page 115 of the P. B. and Annex P/I on page 157 of the F.B., which is subsequently modified by a corrigendum dated 25-9-76 (Annex. P. 2) on page 172 of the P.B. to be declared void and illegal because the procedure prescribed under the Central Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules; was not -followed and it has prejudiced the case of petitioner.
(2.)The petitioner is an employee of respondent No. 1 for the last 18 years and he is holding the post of Engineering Supervisor-re-designated as Junior Engineer for the last 11 years. While he was posted at Ambikapur, he tried to introduce efficiency in the telephone working and to control the use of trunk calls without payment. The petitioner reported this matter to his immediate officer, but the mischief was not enquired into because it is alleged by petitioner that his superior along with his subordinates R.S. Rathore, Afzal Hussain and others were benefited it the malady of free trunk calls prevailed. Further, he alleges that because of free trunk calls, the revenue of Govt was suffering and the gain was shared by his superior officers. He made a report to this effect to the Supdt. of Police with a copy to respondent No 6. But the malady of free trunk calls persisted and the loss to the Govt revenue continued. Annoyed with this behaviour of petitioner, a departmental enquiry was proposed to be held against petitioner and in anticipation of the proposed enquiry, an order of suspension, it is alleged, was passed under Rule 10(1) of the Rules. He has challenged this order also. But, wo are of the opinion that there is no force in his submission that order of suspension cannot be passed under K 10(1) of the Rules. The suspension order is marked an Annex. 'B' and it is at page 30 of the P.B. It clearly mentioned that:-
"Whereas disciplinary proceeding against Shri S.P. Varshney, E.S.P. Ambikapur is contemplated. Now, therefore, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule 1 of rule 10 the Central Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules 1965), hereby places the said Shri S.P. Varshney, E.S.P., Ambikapur under suspension with immediate effect, i.e. 30-1-74"
Nothing was brought to our notice as to how this order is bad in law and not according to rules. Therefor, the submission of Shri H.N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel tor petitioner that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner should be held to be illegal, cannot be accepted.
(3.)The next step which is taken against petitioner is mentioned in Annex. 'C' on page 39 of the Paper Book. The Memorandum says as under:-
"The undersigned proposes to hold an enquiry against Shri S.P. Varshney under R. 14 of the Central Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965. The absence of the imputations of misconduct of misbehaviour in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of Articles of charge Annex 1). A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annex. II). A list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annex. III & IV) "



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.