JUDGEMENT
Sujoy Paul,J. -
(1.)In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 02.09.2004 whereby the Commissioner, Health Services, M.P. directed to conduct a reinquiry against the petitioner. In addition, petitioner has prayed for a direction to release his retiral dues.
(2.)Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was working as District Maleria Officer at Betul. In the year 2000, some persons died in District Hospital, Betul due to maleria. A question was raised in the State Legislative Assembly regarding death of citizens. Thereafter, a major penalty charge-sheet dated 24.02.2001 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply. Since department was not satisfied with the reply, a departmental enquiry was instituted by appointing Presiding Officer and Inquiry Officer. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.12.2001 whereas first Inquiry Officer was appointed on 28.08.2001. The first Inquiry Officer could not complete the inquiry and; therefore, another Inquiry Officer was appointed by order dated 05.11.2003 Annexure R/1. The petitioner was placed under suspension during his service. The suspension order was revoked by order dated 30.05.2002 (Annexure P/7).
(3.)Shri R.N. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Inquiry Officer conducted and completed the inquiry and submitted his report dated 19.06.2004 (Annexure P/12). Five charges levelled against the petitioner were not found to be proved. The inquiry report was placed before the Commissioner, Health Services, M.P. who, in turn, passed the impugned order dated 02.09.2004 (Annexure P/14). Criticising this order, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that (i) learned Commissioner has set aside the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer and directed to conduct 'reinquiry'. This runs contrary to Rule 15 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules' ). Under the said Rule, disciplinary authority is only empowered to conduct a 'further inquiry' and not a 'denovo inquiry' or 'reinquiry'. In supprot of this contention, he placed reliance on judgments of Supreme Court reported in ( K.R. Deb vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong , 1971 2 SCC 102) and ( Vijay Shankar Pandey vs. Union of India and another , 2014 10 SCC 589); (ii) after the retirement of petitioner, inquiry could have been continued only under Rule 9(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'Pension Rules' ) and not under the CCA Rules. By placing heavy reliance on the proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Pension Rules, Shri Roy urged that the disciplinary authority/ Commissioner has no authority, jurisdiction and competence to pass the order dated 02.09.2004; (iii) the respondents committed error in not releasing the entire pension and gratuity to the petitioner. Their action is erroneous whereby they only granted anticipatory/provisional pension to the petitioner. By placing reliance on 2013 (12) SCC 210 (State of Jharkhand and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another), Shri Roy urged that in the light of this judgment, the petitioner is entitled to get entire retiral dues including pension and gratuity.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.