GHANSHYAMDAS SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE petitioner Ghanshyam-das Shrivastava, who was employed as a ranger in the Forest Department, seeks it writ of certiorari for quashing an order passed by the Government on 8th June 1966 dismissing him from service.
(2.) THE applicant's dismissal was as a a sequel to a departmental enquiry on charges of misappropriating Government money to the extent of Rs. 1200, proceeding on leave without obtaining prior sanction, failing to submit weekly diaries during certain periods, disobedience of the orders of the Divisional Forest officer, Bastar Plantation Division, with regard to the construction of temporary lagour shed, late submission of cash accounts and antedating certain payments. The initiation of the enquiry, the applicant's suspension and the appointment of an enquiry Officer were all done by the Government. The charges in respect of which the enquiry was held were also authorized by the Goverment. The enquiry was held by Shri Ansari, Divisional Forest Officer. South Bastar Division. When the applicant was informed of the charges and of the appointment of Shri Ansari as the Enquiry Officer. he raised an obiection to the appointment of Shri Ansari as the enquiry Officer on the ground that Shri Sur. Conservator of Forests, and Shri Kalia, divisional Forest Officer, Plantation Division who were very friendly with each other, were not well disposed towards him and that Shri Ansari was a subordinate of Shri Sur. This objection was reiected by the Government. The petitioner then again moved the Government for appointment of another Enquiry Officer, this time saying that he wanted to examine Shri Ansari as a witness. The Government turned down this request as, according to it, it was wholly unnecessary to examine shri Ansari. The Enquiry Officer first asked the applicant to attend the enquiry on 12th January 1665. When he failed to attend, he was directed to appear before the enquiry Officer on 15th January 1965. This time also the applicant did not attend the enquiry and wrote back to the Enquiry Officer that as his request for the appointment of another Enquiry Officer was not granted and as Shri Ansari was not included "in the list of defence witnesses", he would not attend the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer again fixed a date for the commencement of the enquiry and asked the applicant to appear on 9th February 1965 and file his reply on or before that date. The petitioner again reiterated his obiection to the appointment of Shri ansari as the Enquiry Officer and ultimately wrote back to him tha he was withdrawine from the enquiry
(3.) THE enquiry was, therefore, held ex parte against the applicant. The Enquiry officer examined Shri Kalia, Shri Masa, Shri Ram Lal, Shri Shyam Singh, Shri Bhim and some other persons in support of the charges and gave a report to the government that all the seven charges leveled against the petitioner had been prima facie established On the basis of the Enquiry Officer's report, a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The applicant gave his reply which the Government did not find satisfactory. The Government also consulted the Public Service Commission. After considering the petitioner's reply and the advice of the Public Service Commission, the State Government found that all the charges except one. namely charge No. 7, had been fully established. In regard to charge No. 7 the Government came to the conclusion that it was partly Droved to the extent that certain payments made to five persons were antedated The Government, therefore, passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.