Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 724 (MP)

Malkhansingh Sengar v. State of M. P.

2004-08-31

S.K.SETH

body2004
JUDGMENT In the present writ petition, petitioner assails the validity of the punishment order dated 30.1.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Revision Division, Indore. By the said order, minor penalty of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. The appeal preferred against the said order was of no avail and was rejected. Similarly, in Writ Petition (S) No. 1156/2004, petitioner is assailing the order dated 19.11.2003 again passed by the Commissioner, Revision Division, Indore. By the said order, minor penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that appeal preferred against the said order was of no avail as the same was dismissed by the State Government. In W.P. (S) No. 1085/2004, petitioner is assailing the validity of the order dated 6.4.2004 issued by the State Government cancelling the promotion of the petitioner "on the post of Dy. Collector -in the State Administrative Service. The said order was issued on the ground that penalty of minor penalties was imposed upon the petitioner and the petitioner was undergoing punishment. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the penalty of withholding two increments were imposed upon the petitioner on account of mutation order passed by the petitioner in his capacity as Tehsildar while exercising the powers conferred under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. As such, petitioner ought not to have been visited with the penalty. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has acted and passed the mutation orders on the basis of khasra entries maintained by the lower revenue " authorities. Shri Sethi, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that withholding of two increments without cumulative effect is, therefore, bad in law. It is further centended that the orders passed by the petitioner in his capacity as Tehsildar were appealable or revisable under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code. In W.P. (S) No. 1156/2004, a minor penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. Shri Sethi, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that as per Election Expenses (Maintenance and Lodging of Account) Order, 1997, petitioner was not working as a District Election Officer. Petitioner was simply appointed as 'Returning Officer' for the Nagar Panchayat Election. Shri Sethi, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that as per Election Expenses (Maintenance and Lodging of Account) Order, 1997, petitioner was not working as a District Election Officer. Petitioner was simply appointed as 'Returning Officer' for the Nagar Panchayat Election. Shri Sethi, made a pertinent reference to rule 7 of the these Rules and submitted that under rule 7, duty is cast on the contesting candidate or his election agent to lodge expenses with the District Election Officer." He submitted that no misconduct was committed by the petitioner. In the last case, order dated 6.4.2004 has been passed by the State Government because the petitioner was undergoing the punishment. Shri Sethi submitted that the order dated 6.4.2004 was issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After having heard learned counsel for petitioner at length, in the considered opinion of this Court, all the three cases filed by the petitioner can be disposed of with the direction to the State Government to consider and decide the matter afresh looking to the various contentions, as has been noticed hereinabove. The State Government shall also afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forth his arguments and after hearing the petitioner, the State Government shall pass a detailed and reasoned order. The State Government shall also consider that in case the penalty orders are set aside, whether promotion order dated 12.2.2004 can be given effect to or not. With the aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. C.C. on payment of usual charges within 3 days.