Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 731 (MP)

Pista v. State of M. P.

2014-06-26

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
ORDER 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 21.7.2004 (Annexure P-1). The original petitioner Jawahar Singh Rawat had assailed this order in this petition. During the pendency of the petition, Shri Rawat died and his widow Smt. Pista was inserted as legal representative. Jawahar Singh was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. In the departmental enquiry, the charges were found proved against him. Accordingly, by order dated 1.12.1998 Jawahar Singh was removed from service. Against removal from service, he preferred a departmental appeal. This Court in W.P. No.1311/2003 directed the authorities to decide the appeal. In turn, the respondents considered the appeal and gave personal hearing to Shri Jawahar Singh. The appellate order is passed on 21.7.2004. The appellate authority/State Government opined that before inflicting the punishment of removal, full, reasonable and effective opportunity was not given to the delinquent employee. Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 was not followed. The punishment order is also hit by doctrine of proportionality. In the result, by order dated 21.7.2004, the punishment order was set aside and employee was directed to be reinstated. Lastly, it is directed that the intervening period (between termination to reinstatement) shall be treated as 'dies non'. This portion of the order whereby the period is treated as 'dies non' is called in question in this petition. 2. The singular contention advanced by Shri D.P.Singh is that the termination is held to be illegal by the respondents. No further enquiry is ordered. Once termination is set aside, petitioner's position is restored and, therefore, there is no justification in treating the intervening period as 'dies non'. 3. Prayer is opposed by Shri Raghvendra Dixit, Government Advocate. By taking this Court to various paragraphs of the return, Shri Dixit justified the action of the respondents. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The admitted facts are that the employee was removed from service on 1.12.1998 and this punishment order was set aside in appeal on 21.7.2004. The appellate authority did not direct for any further enquiry. In the opinion of this Court, once punishment order is set aside, the presumption is as if this order never existed in the eyes of law. The admitted facts are that the employee was removed from service on 1.12.1998 and this punishment order was set aside in appeal on 21.7.2004. The appellate authority did not direct for any further enquiry. In the opinion of this Court, once punishment order is set aside, the presumption is as if this order never existed in the eyes of law. Thus, I find force in the argument of Shri D.P.Singh that once punishment order is set aside without any further direction of holding any further enquiry, there is no justification in treating the intervening period as 'dies non'. The petitioner has also prayed for salary and other benefits for the intervening period. 6. At the cost of repetition, the punishment order is set aside without holding any further enquiry. Thus the employee is entitled for all consequential monetary benefits for the intervening period. The inevitable consequence of setting aside of the punishment order will result into reinstatement of the employee with all benefits as if the removal order is never passed. There is no justification in treating the intervening period as 'dies non'. 7. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, the order Annexure P-1 to the extent the intervening period is treated as 'dies non' is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay salary and other consequential monetary benefits to the widow for the intervening period. The pension and other retiral dues be also recalculated and arrears arising thereto be paid to the widow. The entire exercise be completed within 90 days from the date of communication of this order. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. .....................