Madhya Pradesh High Court
Upendra Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 4 October, 2013
W.P. No. 16437 Of 2013 (S)
4.10.2013
Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent
State.
Heard.
Issuance of charge sheet on 14.5.2012 and the appointment of enquiry officer to enquire into charges by order dated 15.7.2013 are being challenged by the petitioner. And a direction to respondents to settle retiral dues.
Petitioner is a retired Assistant Sub Inspector having retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f 31.7.2012. Before his retirement the petitioner was served with the charge sheet on 14.5.2012 with following charges:
1- Fkkuk pqjgV ds exZ dz- 62@05 /kkjk 175 tkQkS e`rd HkS;kyky dksy 30 lky dh izkjafHkd tkap fnukad 22-9-05 ls 24-9-05 rd djuk e`rd ds 'ko dh ih,e fjiksVZ fnukad 23-9-05 dks izkIr gksuk] ftlesa MkWDVj Vhe }kjk gR;k dk vijk/k ?kfVr gksuk Li"V ys[k fd, tkus ds ckotwn Hkh rRdky gR;k dk vijk/k iathc) u dj gR;k tSls t?kU; vijk/k ds vkjksfi;ksa dk lg;ksx dj iqfyl jsxqys'ku ds iSjk dz- 64 ds fcanq dz- 2 ,oa iSjk dz- 586 dk mYya?ku djukA 2- tkWpdrkZ ds :i esa dk;Z djrs gq, exZ dz- 62@05 /kkjk 174 tkQkS dh tkap esa ?kksj ykijokgh mnklhurk ,oa lafnX/k vkpj.k dk izn'kZu dj n-iz-la- dh /kkjk 174 esa fn, x, izko/kkuksa dh vogsyuk djukA That, an enquiry officer has been appointed under su Rule (2) of Rule 14 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 by order dated 15.7.2013 to conduct a joint enquiry as per subrule 18 of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966.
Though the chargesheet has been challenged on the ground that the same has been issued after retirement; however, this is not factually correct. Petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2012 whereas charge sheet has been issued prior to retirement on 14.5.2012.
Clause (a) of subrule (2) of Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 stipulates that "the departmental proceedings, if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced, in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service:
Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall submit a report regarding its finding to the Governor."
Thus when tested on the touchstone of Rule 9 (2) (a) of 1976, the issuance of charge sheet prior to retirement and the continuation of departmental enquiry after retirement cannot be faulted with.
Next contention of the petitioner that he has been subjected to a departmental enquiry in respect of the incident which took place six years ago and therefore the entire charge sheet is vitiated on the ground of delay.
Apparent it is from the charges levelled against the petitioner that they are very serious in nature and relates to the delinquency in discharge of the duty. Furthermore, as evident from the chargesheet that, the petitioner alone has not been chargesheeted but the then Sub Divisional Officer (Police) and the Station House Officer Police Station, Churhat also been chargesheeted in respect of the offence forming subject matter of Crime No. 62/2005. The charges reflect that there were complaints against the alleged dereliction and it appears that it was only after ascertaining the facts that, a decision has been taken to issue the charge sheet. In Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. V. Appala Swamy (2007) 14 SCC 49, it has been held that "12. So far as the question of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings as against a delinquent officer is concerned, in our opinion, no hard and fast rule can be laid down therefor. Each case must be determined on its our facts. The principles upon which a proceeding can be directed to be quashed on the ground of delay are:
(1) where by reason of the delay, the employer condoned the lapses on the part of the employee; (2) where the delay caused prejudice to the employee.
Such a case of prejudice, however, is to be made out by the employee before the Inquiry officer."
For these reasons challenge on the ground of delay is also negatived.
Regarding settlement of retiral dues, since the petitioner is facing the departmental enquiry, the same is subject to the provisions contained under Rule 64 of the Rules, 1976 which stipulates:
"fu;e 64- vUrfje isU'ku tgkWa foHkkxh; vFkok U;kf;d dk;Zokgh yfEcr gS ¼Provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceeding may be pending½ ¼1½ ¼d½ fu;e 9 ds mifu;e ¼4½ esa fufnZ"V 'kkldh; lsod ds lEcU/k esa dk;kZy; izeq[k mruh vufUre isU'ku izkf/kd`r djsxk] tks fd ml vf/kdre isU'ku ds cjkcj gksxh] tks 'kkldh; lsod dks lsokfuo`fRr dh rkjh[k rd dh ;k ;fn og lsokfuo`fRr dh rkjh[k dks fuyfEcr Fkk rks ml rkjh[k] ftl rkjh[k dks mls fuyfEcr fd;k x;k Fkk] ds Bhd iwoZ dh rkjh[k rd dh vgZdkjh lsok ds vk/kkj ij vuqKs; gksA ¼[k½ lsokfuo`fRr dh rkjh[k ls izkjEHk gksdj ml rkjh[k rd rFkk ml rkjh[k dks lfEefyr djrs gq, ftldks fd foHkkxh;
;k U;kf;d dk;Zokfg;kWa lekIr gksus ds i'pkr~ l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk vfUre vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tk,] dh dkykof/k dh vufUre isU'ku] dk;kZy; izeq[k }kjk LFkkiuk osru ns;d ij fudkyh tk,xh vkSj lsokfuo`Rr 'kkldh; lsod dks lanRr dh tkoxhA ¼x½ 'kkldh; lsod dks minku dk Hkqxrku rc rd ugha fd;k tk,xk tc rd fd foHkkxh; ;k U;kf;d dk;Zokfg;kWa lekIr u gks tk, vkSj ml ij vfUre vkns'k ikfjr ugha dj fn;k tk, % ijUrq tgkWa foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;kWa] e/;izns'k flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;U=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 16 ds v/khu mDr fu;eksa ds fu;e 10 ds [k.M ¼,d½] ¼nks½ rFkk ¼pkj½ esa fofufnZ"V 'kkfLr;ksa esa ls fdlh Hkh 'kkfLr dks vf/kjksi.k djus ds fy;s lafLFkr dh xbZ gS] ogka 'kkldh;
lsod dks fu;eksa ds v/khu vuqKs; minku dh 90% rd vufUre minku dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk izkf/kd`r fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2½ dk;kZy; izeq[k }kjk vufUre isa'ku@minku LFkkiuk osru ns;d ij fudkyk tk,xk rFkk fu;e 60 ds mifu;e ¼2½ esa of.kZr 'kks/;ksa dks lek;ksftr djus ds i'pkr~ 'kkldh; lsod dks] laijh{kk dk;kZy; dks lwpuk ds v/khu lanRr fd;k tk,xkA mi fu;e ¼1½ ds v/khu vufUre isU'ku@minku ds Hkqxrku dk lek;kstu] ,slh dk;Zokfg;ksa dh lekfIr ij] ml 'kkldh; lsod dks Lohd`r vfUre lsokfuo`fRr ykHkksa ls fd;k tk,xk fdUrq ml fLFkfr esa dksbZ olwyh ugha dh tk,xh tgkWa vfUre :i ls Lohd`r isU'ku@minku vufUre isU'ku@ minku ls de gS ;k tgka isa'ku@minku dks ;k rks LFkk;h :i ls ;k fdlh fofufnZ"V dkykof/k ds fy;s de dj fn;k x;k gks ;k jksd fn;k x;k gksA"
In view whereof the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority for settlement of retiral dues as per Rule 64, if the same is not settled till date. The Authority concerned shall dwell upon the same objectively as per the provisions contained under Rule 64.
In the result the petition is disposed of finally in above terms.
C.c. as per rules.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi