R.B.Vishwakarma vs M.P.State Co-Operative Sch. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 842 MP

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR



WRIT PETITION(S) NO.                          1677/2003
Parties Name                  R. B. VISHWAKARMA
                                         VS.
                              M. P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE SCHEDULED FINANCE
                              AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND
                              ANOTHER
Bench Constituted             Single Bench
Judgment delivered By         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
Whether       approved   for YES/NO
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For petitioner: Shri N. S. Ruprah, Advocate.

                              For Respondents : None

Law laid down Significant paragraph number

(O R D E R ) 18/03/2021

Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order dated

01.09.2003 by which petitioner was removed from his service

and recovery of Rs.19,09,765/- was ordered to be recovered from

him.

2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the

ground that petitioner was not given copies of records demanded

by him and neither he was allowed to inspect the record on basis

of which charges are framed against petitioner. Petitioner was not

given copy of enquiry report and, therefore, his rights of natural

justice were violated by respondents in passing the impugned

order. Enquiry was conducted ex-party behind his back and

petitioner was not permitted to participate in enquiry. It is

further submitted by counsel appearing for petitioner that not

even a single witness was examined in the enquiry and petitioner

was also not given any opportunity to lead evidence in the case.

On aforesaid grounds it is submitted by counsel appearing for

petitioner that order dated 01.09.2003 is vitiated and bad in law

and same deserves to be quashed and petitioner be reinstated

with back wages and all consequential benefits.

3. None appears for the respondents. Matter is of year 2003

and is listed in final hearing list. Since respondents are not

appearing in the matter despite notice, therefore, they are

proceeded ex-parte.

4. Respondents had filed their reply and stated therein that

petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the

Board of Directors. Charge sheet was served upon the petitioner

and he failed to appear in departmental enquiry. Departmental

enquiry proceeded ex parte against the petitioner. Petitioner was

served with enquiry report. Enquiry report was served along with

the show cause notice. Petitioner has also filed reply to the show

cause notice which also shows that enquiry report was served

upon him. Witnesses were examined in the case and on basis of

oral deposition and documentary evidence, order has been

passed in departmental enquiry.

5. Considered the arguments raised by the counsel for

petitioner, perused the documents filed along with the writ

petition and the documents filed along with the reply.

6. From a perusal of the documents it is evident that notice

was issued to petitioner on 03.09.1999. Enquiry Officer was

appointed on 22.02.2000. Enquiry report was prepared on

18.06.2003. Show cause notice was issued on 29.7.2003 and

thereafter reply was filed by petitioner on 11.08.2003. From

perusal of the documents it is clear that petitioner did not

participate in departmental enquiry. Departmental enquiry

proceeded ex parte against him. Petitioner was given enquiry

report. Enquiry report was annexed along with show cause

notice. Petitioner has filed its reply to show cause notice dated

29.7.2003.

7. On basis of reply it can be gathered that enquiry report was

served upon him. As many as 32 witnesses were examined in the

case and their statement was recorded. It cannot be said that no

witness was examined in enquiry. The petitioner repeatedly said

that he will give answers to certain charges after going through

the records of the case but petitioner has not made any specific

averment when he filed an application for examination of records

or when he made any oral request for examination of records. It

is not stated specifically as to when his request for examination

of records was declined. In the reply it has been stated by

respondents that petitioner never filed any application for

examination of records. Petitioner only feigns himself to be

eager to examine the records but actually he never wanted to

examine any records. He never moved any application to

examine the records and he was never denied opportunity to

examine the records. Neither petitioner was able to point out

when he moved any application to adduce evidence but was

denied opportunity to lead evidence. Petitioner intentionally did

not participate in departmental enquiry and was proceeded ex

parte. In this circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner was

not given any opportunity of hearing by respondents.

8. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the

case, no procedural error has been found in conducting the

departmental enquiry by respondents.

9. Writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE mms

Digitally signed by MONSI M SIMON Date: 2021.03.25 11:02:17 +05'30'