Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1393 (MP)

Devkinandan Shukla v. State of M. P.

2011-12-12

SUJOY PAUL

body2011
ORDER Hon'ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul 1. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under: 2. Petitioner Devkinandan Shukla died during the pendency of this writ petition. Accordingly, his widow was impleaded as a legal representative. Earlier petitioner filed O.A. No. 1493/2002, which was transferred to this court on abolition of the Tribunal and was re-registered as W.P. No. 6813/2003(S). In the said case, petitioner has challenged the punishment order, whereby a recovery of Rs.19,215/was inflicted on the petitioner (Annexure A-7 in the said case). This Court decided the said matter on 27.02.2007 and passed following order: Consequently, the order impugned herein and the recovery of amount of loss from the petitioner is illegal. Hence, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. Impugned order, Annexure A-7 communicated to the petitioner on 22.09.2004 vide Annexure A-6 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the aforesaid amount to the petitioner and revised his gratuity and other pensionary benefits. If any other pensionary benefits have not been paid to the petitioner, that may also be paid to the petitioner. The order be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to cost. 3. Shri Alok Katare submits that because of pendency of aforesaid disciplinary proceedings which resulted into imposition of punishment of recovery (Annexure A-7 above), the fate of the employee was kept in sealed cover for the purpose of promotion. The singular argument advanced by Shri Katare is that once the petitioner's punishment order is quashed and amount has been directed to be refunded and no further action is taken by the respondents, by no stretch of imagination, the employee can be held as guilty. He submits that the punishment order is the result of disciplinary proceedings and once the punishment order is quashed, it cannot be said that petitioner was guilty in the said disciplinary proceedings. He submits that Annexure R-3 dated 23.02.2008 makes it crystal clear that the singular reason for not opening the sealed cover is assigned by the respondents that the petitioner is not exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, sealed cover cannot be opened and recommendations cannot be given effect to. 4. Per contra, Smt. Nidhi Patankar, learned Government Advocate submits that recovery order (Annexure A-7) was interfered with by this court on technical ground. 4. Per contra, Smt. Nidhi Patankar, learned Government Advocate submits that recovery order (Annexure A-7) was interfered with by this court on technical ground. Mere quashing of that order would not result into exoneration of the petitioner from the disciplinary proceedings. She further submits that relief prayed for by the petitioner in the petition cannot be granted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. This Court while dealing with the disciplinary proceedings in W.P.No. 6813/2003(s) [Annexure-P/2] held as under: Apart from this, in the order it has not been mentioned in detail that on what basis the Authority has came to the conclusion that petitioner has caused any pecuniary loss to the Government. For other reasons stated in the order, the punishment was quashed. No liberty was reserved to the respondents to proceed further in the disciplinary proceedings. The respondents have also not chosen either proceed further in the matter of disciplinary proceedings or challenge the order passed by this Court in the said W.P. 7. I find force in the argument of the petitioner that the punishment order is the result of disciplinary proceedings. Once, punishment order is quashed, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that petitioner is still guilty of the charges. Thus, the stand taken by the respondents is impermissible and cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. 8. In the result, petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to open the sealed cover and implement it's recommendations and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. This exercise should be completed within four months. No costs.