STATE OF M P Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus, certiorari or any other suitable writ, order or direction for quashing the order passed by respondent No. 2 M.R State Administrative Tribunal, Bench Gwalior Dated 18.4.2001 in OA No. 1457/2000.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 at the relevant time was holding the post of Assistant District Public Prosecuting Officer Gwalior. He was served with a charge-sheet. Reply of the charge-sheet was filed and a regular departmental enquiry was conducted against him under M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules. After conducting the regular enquiry, the enquiry officer gave a finding that the respondent No. 1 is guilty of committing misconduct as per the charge-sheet. On the basis of the aforesaid report, disciplinary authority served a show cause notice in respect of imposition of punishment and it was proposed to give the punishment of stoppage of five increments. The matter was referred to M.P. Public Service Commission for consultation before taking final decision in the matter. Public Service Commission after considering the entire material as of the view that some severe punishment should be given. After the advice of the P.S.C. by order dated 10.1.1997 the order of compulsory retirement was passed, which the respondent No. 1 challenged in OA No. 59/97, which was decided by the order dated 30.1.1999 and the punishment of compulsory retirement was set aside with a liberty to the respondent to decide the disciplinary proceedings after giving him a fresh show cause notice in view of the opinion as given to them by the PSC along with their own finding and proposing the punishment therein. Thereafter the State Government gave a fresh show cause notice dated 26.7.1999 (Annexure A-29) imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. The reply of the said show cause notice was submitted on 2.9.1999 and 2.12.1999. Thereafter the State Government imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement on the applicant vide impugned order dated 16.2.2000. The applicant again challenged the said order in OA No. 1457/2000 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior. Tribunal vide order dated 18.4.2001 allowed the application, set aside the impugned order, against which the State has filed this petition.

(3.) THE Tribunal has held that the order dated 10.1.1997 (Annexure A- 26) for imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement of the applicant was issued on the advice of the PSC. PSC gave opinion that the proposed punishment of withholding five increments with cumulative effect was inadequate and suggested the punishment of compulsory retirement. The State Government concurred with the opinion of the PSC. Thereafter issued the fresh show cause notice and awarded punishment of compulsory retirement. The learned Tribunal rejected all other arguments of the respondents which were raised to challenge the order of punishment. The Tribunal only considered this aspect of the matter, that the enquiry officer had found charge No. 4 as only partly proved and the disciplinary authority has found this charge as fully proved. Therefore there was disagreement between them. As per charge-sheet, four charges were levied against respondent No. 1. Enquiry Officer found that the first charge was not proved. Charge No. 2, 3 and 4 were found fully proved but due to mistake in the last para of enquiry report it was mentioned that the charge No. 4 was partly proved. The Tribunal has discussed from para No. 19 to 23 about the proving of charge and considered that it as a case of disagreement between the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority and has held that the disciplinary authority has not recorded any reasons for disagreement. It as argued before the Tribunal that if somewhere it was wrongly written that charges No. 2 and 4 were fully proved and there is silence about charge No. 3 then it was only a case of clerical mistake that in some document it was written that charges No. 2 and 3 were proved and charge No. 4 was partly proved but considering that clerical mistake, Tribunal held that it is a case of disagreement between the finding of enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority and later should have recorded reasons and it should have also given a show cause notice afresh before doing so and quashed the impugned order on the aforesaid ground.