- (1.)BY this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21-9-2000 passed by the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (in short 'the Tribunal') in O. A. No. 5054/2000 dismissing his original application, summarily, being premature.
(2.)THE petitioner was serving as Assistant Treasury Officer, Balaghat. Earlier a charge-sheet was issued against him on 26-2-1980 and a departmental enquiry was conducted. In the said enquiry, the enquiry officer found that the charges were not proved. However, the disciplinary authority, differing with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, passed the order on 19-12-1986 directing the petitioner to retire compulsorily. This order which is annexed as Annexure P-5 to this petition, was assailed before this Court by filing a writ petition which was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal and the same was registered as T. A. No. 1150/88 in the Tribunal. The said Transfer Application was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 5-4-1997 (Annexure P-6 ). The Tribunal while passing the said order issued following directions:-
"11. The Disciplinary Authority may, if so advise give an opportunity to the petitioner of showing cause as to why the findings given by the disciplinary authority may not be substituted in place of the findings given by the enquiry officer. If giving of such an opportunity is contemplated by the disciplinary authority the same to be done within 3 months of a certified copy of this order being produced before the disciplinary authority by the petitioner. A copy of this order be also sent to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by the Tribunal within 15 days of passing of this order by Registered Acknowledgment Due Post and compliance of this order be reported to the Registrar within the said period. However, even if on a proof being produced by the petitioner that a certified copy of this order had been produced before the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but no action pertaining to giving opportunity to the petitioner as contemplated above was given within the period prescribed then the order of imposing penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner shall be treated as non-existent and the service record of the petitioner shall be considered as if no such penalty was imposed on him. "

(3.)A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11-6-1997. A reply was submitted by the petitioner on 7-8-97 but no action was taken against him. Consequently, he was reinstated in the service and was posted as Assistant Treasury Officer vide order dated 27-9-1997 (Annexure P-9 ).