Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 689 (MP)

B. P. Dubey v. State of M. P.

2016-08-11

ALOK ARADHE

body2016
ORDER 1. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia assailed the validity of the order dated 5.1.2006 by which punishment of deduction of five percent amount of pension from the monthly pension of the petitioner permanently after superannuation of the petitioner on 29.2.2004 has been passed. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was holding the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari at the relevant time. A charge sheet was served to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet. Thereafter, an euquiry was held against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority vide order dated 5.1.2006 imposed penalty of deduction of 5% of the amount of pension from the monthly pension of the petitioner after the superannuation of the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached to this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind in as much as no reasons have been assigned warranting passing of the impugned order. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to show that after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, any report by the disciplinary authority was sent to the Council of Ministers and the record does not indicate that the decision to withhold five percent of pension permanently was taken by the Council of Ministers. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents State is unable to point out from the record that the report regarding findings was sent by the disciplinary authority to the Council of Ministers or that the decision to withhold five percent pension permanently was taken by the Council of Ministers. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. There is no material on record to show that either the findings were sent to the Council of Ministers or the decision to withhold five percent pension of the petitioner was taken by the Council of Ministers. It is a trite law that the Governor acts on the aid and advise of the Council of Ministers See State of M.P. v. Dr.Yashwant Trimbak [AIR 1996 SC 775]. 7. In view of the preceding analysis, the impugned order dated 5.1.2006 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is accordingly quashed. It is a trite law that the Governor acts on the aid and advise of the Council of Ministers See State of M.P. v. Dr.Yashwant Trimbak [AIR 1996 SC 775]. 7. In view of the preceding analysis, the impugned order dated 5.1.2006 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is accordingly quashed. Needless to state that the respondents would be at liberty, if so advised, to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. S. P. Jain for petitioner; Praveen Newaskar, Government Advocate for respondents/State.