Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 169 (MP)

State of M. P. v. S. B. S. Parihar

2003-01-27

BHAWANI SINGH, S.L.JAIN

body2003
JUDGMENT Singh, C.J. -- After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we propose to dismiss this petition by this order in circumstances narrated below. SBS Parihar was Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajghat Canal, Sub-Division No.6, Orchha (Tikamgarh). V.K. Agrawal, Executive Engineer, Rajghat Canal Division No.2, Orchha (Tikarngarh) was placed under suspension by order dated 19.5.2000. Pursuant to the directions of the State Government, Shri SBS Parihar was given Additional Charge of the post of Executive Engineer, Rajghat Canal, Sub-Division No. II, Orchha (Tikamgarh), here to before occupied by Shri V. K. Agutwal. During this period, he released payment of Rs. 52 lacs to contractors by passing their bills. The charge against SBS Parihar is that he should nut have exercised financial powers, since he was holding only Current charge of the post of Executive Engineer, Rajghat Canal Project and that he did not stay at the Head quarters. It seems, seriousness was uttached to the matter on account of Assembly Question. There, it was stated that Shri SBS Parihar had been placed under suspension and the departmental enquiry initiated against him. But, it is noticeable that the Chief Engineer has categorically stated that sequel to the directions of the State Government, Shri SBS Parihar was holding additional charge of the post and not current charge and that he was staying at the head-quarters. He categorically exonerates SBS Parihar and inter alia submits that no financial irregularity had been committed by him in the payment of bills. The matter has been thoroughly examined by the Tribunal and it is found that Shri SBS Parihar could competently deal with the financial matters and he had made the payments in accordance with the M.P. Financial Code and the Government instructions issued on the subject. With this background, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that placing an Officer uncler suspension is arbitrary and colourable exercise of powers under Rule 9(1) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Consequently, his suspension has been quashed. The matter has been examined. Counsel for parties heard. This is absolutely clear that Shri SBS Parihar held additional charge of the post of Executive Engineer, Rajghat Canal Division No. II. Orchha (Tikamgarh). Under the M.P. Financial Code and the Government instructions, he could exercise financial powers. Therefore, payment un bills of the contractors is justified. The matter has been examined. Counsel for parties heard. This is absolutely clear that Shri SBS Parihar held additional charge of the post of Executive Engineer, Rajghat Canal Division No. II. Orchha (Tikamgarh). Under the M.P. Financial Code and the Government instructions, he could exercise financial powers. Therefore, payment un bills of the contractors is justified. Even otherwise, he could exercise financial powers in the capacity of holding current charge of the post. Position has been made clear by the Chief Engineer stating that Shri SBS Parihar could competently exercise financial powers. No financial irregularity has been committed by him in the payment on bills of various contractors. He could do so, even if the had held Current charge of the post. M.P. GAD Memo No. 213 dated 1.2.1964, M.P. Financial Code and M.P. PWD Manual para 1.093 goverh the action taken by Shri SBS Parihar. Shri B. Da. Silva, Dy. AG., contends that enquiry is pending against SBS Parihar, therefore, observations made by the Tribunal may prejudice it. We do not appreciate this contention. The Tribunal was examining the merits of suspension in this case. Therefore, for quashing the same, it was required to give adequate reasons. Hence, it cannot be said that the Tribunal ought not to have given extensive reasons for the conclusions drawn by it. Rather, it would be just and proper for competent authority to consider these observations of the Tribunal for deciding whether it is still necessary to continue the departmental enquiry. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.