RAM DAS PATEL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was selected for the post of Central Commandar on 7 -7 -1963. He was confirmed in the said post as Company Commandar at Jhabua in the year 1990 and was attached to Damoh at the time of by -election of M.P. Legislative Assembly which took place on 6 -5 -1990. During the aforesaid period a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the foundation that he had entered into collusion with Central Commandant Mr. Uma Shanker Gour who was working under him and forged signatures of 16 soldiers and shown their presence in Vidhan Sabha Election duty and prepared forged bills and committed fraud. A show cause was issued. A departmental enquiry was hold against him and Senior Staff Home Guard was appointed as Inquiry Officer who found that the charges levelled against him had not been proved and he was innocent. The Inquiry Report has been brought on record as Annexure -A/1. The Disciplinary Authority, Director General and Commandant General Home Guard did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and after recording his dissent submitted a show -cause as Annexure -A/2 stating that why he should be punished for dismissal from service. Thereafter, as setforth, the petitioner vide Annexure -A/3 submitted his reply. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment as per Anexure -A/4 dated 19 -12 -1992. By virtue of said punishment the petitioner was brought to the minimum of pay scale with cumulative effect for a period of five years, the period of suspension was treated as such and he would not be entitled to any further sum and he would be reinstated in the post of Company Commandar at Damoh. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was disposed of, as submitted in the petition. In view of the aforesaid factual position a prayer has been made to set aside the order of punishment dated 19 -12 -1992 (Annexure -A/4) and to consider his case for promotion to the higher post.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed contending, inter alia, that the disciplinary authority on scrutiny of the report and other documents submitted by the Inquiry Officer found that the Inquiry Officer had not found the charges proved against the applicant though there was enough material to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. The reasons ascribed by the disciplinary authority has been incorporated in the return. It is contended that the show cause notice was issued for imposing punishment of dismissal. The disciplinary authority taking into consideration the totality of circumstances issued different kind of punishment. It is also putforth that the appeal was rejected vide order dated 5 -5 -1994 and the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30 -4 -1996. It is contended that the petitioner was not promoted to the higher post because of unsatisfactory report. It is urged that under Rule 10(6) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 the case of the petitioner was properly considered and the punishment was imposed keeping in view the seriousness of the charges.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S. K. Verma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Om Namdeo, learned Government Advocate for the respondent -State. It is contended by Mr. Verma that note of disagreement by the disciplinary authority was totally unwarranted inasmuch as the said disagreement was based on erroneous foundation as if the expert opinion can be taken into consideration when he was not examined. It is also urged by him that the reasons ascribed by the disciplinary authority are cryptic and contrary to record and, therefore, it is crystal clear that there has been perversity of approach and hence, liable to be quashed.