Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 50 (MP)

Ramswaroop Shrivastava v. State of M. P.

2004-01-19

DIPAK MISRA

body2004
JUDGMENT The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Superintendent of Land Records and posted on deputation as Naib Tahsildar, was proceeded in a departmental proceeding sometime in the year 1988 and the proceedings continued after his retirement. He stood superannuated on 30th April, 1992. The proceeding was closed after due enquiry and the competent authority under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 [in short 'the Rules'] imposed punishment withholding of 10% pension permanently by order dated 12.11.1997. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid order. It is relevant to state here that during the pendency of this proceeding the original writ petitioner expired in the year 2001 and his legal heirs have been brought on record. Though Mr. Ramesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner initially made endeavour to assail the order of punishment on the ground that the entire departmental proceeding was founded on the base that the petitioner had passed illegal, irregular and incorrect orders and in that backdrop no proceedings could be initiated. The learned counsel commended me to the number of documents and the evidence brought on record to build the edifice that it is a no case of evidence. Mr. S.K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the State submitted that the order has been passed by the competent authority on behalf of the Governor, vide Annexure-A/16 and it is not a case of no evidence and the conclusions have been arrived at by ascribing proper reasons. Upon perusal of the documents brought on record and reading the reasonings given by the competent authority, I am of the considered opinion, the present case is one that cannot be treated as a case of no evidence. It also cannot be regarded as a case where charges being vague could not have been proceeded against the employee. However, one thing that weighs with this Court is that during the pendency of the proceedings the petitioner has expired. The competent authority who had passed the order for disciplinary proceeding considered various facts and directed withholding of 10 percent pension permanently. Though the percentage cannot be shockingly disproportionate but as the death of the petitioner had occurred and he died leaving behind his widow, in my considered opinion, withholding of 10 percent permanently is grave and in a way and not commensurate to the charge. Mr. Though the percentage cannot be shockingly disproportionate but as the death of the petitioner had occurred and he died leaving behind his widow, in my considered opinion, withholding of 10 percent permanently is grave and in a way and not commensurate to the charge. Mr. Shrivastava commended me to rule 9 of the Rules to show that 10 percent could have been withheld for a specified period, so that ends of justice could have been met with. What might have been the state of affairs had the original petitioner been alive is in the realm of speculation. But considering the obtaining factual matrix which only relates to family pension, I am inclined to direct the competent authority to reconsider the matter' for the purpose of withholding of pension for a specified period. He may be well advised to confine it till the date of death of the original petitioner so that ends of justice would be best served. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. C.C. as per rules.