Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 754 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Munnu Singh Baraskar

2019-11-02

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, VIVEK RUSIA

body2019
ORDER 1. This is an appeal filed by the State Government against the order dated 1.10.2018 passed by the writ Court in W.P. No. 7724/2019 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed. 2. This appeal is barred by 80 days, hence, I.A. No. 1443/2019, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. The application is supported by an affidavit. Keeping in view the reasons mentioned in the application, same stands allowed. Delay of 80 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Heard on the question of admission. 4. The respondent while working as Superintendent (Land Record) in the Office of Collector, Dewas was served with the show cause notice dated 19.7.2012 in respect of mutation done by him. The petitioner filed the reply to the show cause notice by submitting that he has passed the order of mutation in compliance of judgment and decree dated 5.4.1997, passed in Civil Appeal No. 5- A/97-93 (Radheshyam v. State of M.P. and others). Being dissatisfied with the reply, the charge sheet dated 16.1.2013 was issued. Thereafter, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted keeping the petitioner under suspension. However, the suspension order was revoked on 10.4.2013 and after completion of the enquiry a punishment of reduction in pay was imposed by order dated 3.6.2016. The respondent preferred a departmental appeal which has been dismissed by order dated 16.2.2018. The respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India before this Court inter-alia on the ground that the Commissioner is not a disciplinary authority of the petitioner, therefore, he has no authority to impose the punishment upon the petitioner. Under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 the State Government is the appointing authority as well as disciplinary authority. Learned writ Court vide order dated 1.10.2018, the writ petition was allowed the writ petition and came to the conclusion that the Commissioner is not a competent authority to impose the major punishment to the petitioner and set aside the order dated 3.6.2016 and 16.2.2018 with the direction that the petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the State Government has preferred the present writ appeal. 5. We have heard Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned GA for the petitioners/State and Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the State Government has preferred the present writ appeal. 5. We have heard Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned GA for the petitioners/State and Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The State Government has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the respondent has passed the order of mutation in the year 2007 on the basis of judgment and decree passed in the year 1997. The writ Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the respondent on his name deleted the name of Collector as a Manager and mutated the name of Pujari Radheshyam Bairagi. The punishment was rightly imposed on the respondent keeping in view the gross misconduct committed by him. In entire writ appeal, none of the ground has been raised in respect of competency of the Commissioner to impose the punishment. The writ Court has set aside the order of disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority on the ground of competence. Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned GA appearing on behalf of the petitioner/State has failed to satisfy this Court as to how the Commissioner was competent to impose such punishment, therefore, we do not find any substance in the writ appeal and same is liable to be dismissed. 7. We would like to observe that before filing an appeal, it is the duty of the Office of Advocate General to examine as to whether any ground is available to challenge the order passed by the writ Court. They ought not to have file appeal in a routine manner. When the respondent filed a contempt petition against the Officer of the State Government, then they filed the writ appeal before this Court. When the order of writ Court is not liable to be interfered on the facts as well as on law then order should be complied with. This is nothing but harassment to the poor litigant and wastage of the precious time of the High Court. 8. Hence, the writ appeal stands dismissed with the cost of Rs. 10,000/-, payable to the respondent. ...............