YOGIRAJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 2-4-2013 by which the petitioner, who was working on the post of Director, Health and Family Welfare, M.P., has been dismissed from service as well as order dated 23-11-2013 by which the petitioner's appeal against the order of dismissal has been dismissed. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner entered service of the respondents on 29-5-1982 as an Assistant Surgeon and was thereafter appointed afresh through the M.P. Public Service Commission as Chief Medical and Health Officer in the year 1991. On 2-12-1998, the petitioner was promoted as Director, Public Health and Family Welfare, M.P.

(2.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire enquiry initiated against the petitioner is vitiated on account of the fact that the charges levelled against the petitioner are vague and unsubstantiated; that the documents on the basis of which the charge sheet has been issued have not been supplied; that important witnesses have not been examined by the department; that three preliminary enquiry reports, which were conducted prior to initiation of disciplinary proceedings have not been considered; that charge Nos. 2 and 3 levelled against the petitioner have not been considered and decided in detail by taking into consideration the evidence adduced in the enquiry and; that charge No. 1 is held to have been proved in spite of the fact that there was no evidence in support thereof.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and that proper show-cause notice before passing the impugned order of termination/dismissal was not issued to the petitioner nor was he informed that his past conduct and record would be taken into consideration while determining the quantum of punishment. It is also contended that though the respondents took advise from the Public Service Commission on the enquiry report, the same was not given to the petitioner in order to enable him to submit his response thereto before taking a decision in the disciplinary enquiry and passing the impugned order of termination. All these issues have been raised by the petitioner in the present petition and several decisions of the Supreme Court have been cited in support thereof.