Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Praveen Jain vs Chairman Board Of Management M.P ... on 28 September, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 RP-854-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
RP-854-2020
(SHRI PRAVEEN JAIN Vs CHAIRMAN BOARD OF MANAGEMENT M.P BHOJ UNIVERCITY AND
OTHERS)
4
Jabalpur, Dated : 28-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Per:V.K.Shukla,J.
Shri Himanshu Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
The present review petition has been filed by Dr.Praveen Jain seeking
review of the order dated 29-07-2020, passed in W.A.No.555/2020 filed by
respondents- Chairman, Board of Management, M.P. Bhoj Open University
and another whereby the writ appeal filed by them was allowed and the
order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 04-02-2020 passed in
W.P.No.19649/2017 was set aside.
Respondent nos. 1 and 2 had filed the writ appeal on the ground that
the learned Single Judge after relying upon the case of Mohd. Ismail
Khan Vs. M.P.Road Transport Corporation 2010(1) MPLJ 346 and the
GAD circular dated 02-07- 1999 held that the appointments of the Enquiry
Officer as well as the Presenting Officer are contrary to the Rules and
Regulations and therefore, liable to be quashed. The petition was allowed
with liberty to the respondent nos.1 and 2 to appoint a fresh Enquiry
Officer and Presenting Officer to take the disciplinary action as per law
against the petitioner.
The Division Bench of this court considered the issue regarding
validity of the departmental enquiry under Rule 14(2) of the Madhya
Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in
brief the Rules of 1966) conducted by an Enquiry Officer who is not a
serving officer or a retired officer and whether the Presenting Officer can be
an officer junior in rank than the delinquent. After a detailed discussion
and consideration of all the judgments referred to by the parties, the
Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge erred in nullifying the
2 RP-854-2020
order of appointment of Shri Anil Pare, a retired District Judge as Enquiry
Officer and his appointment as Enquiry Officer was restored. As regard to
appointment of Dr. Rajeev Saxena, Chief Finance Officer as the Presenting
Officer was also held to be a valid appointment. The Rules does not
qualify that the Presenting Officer must be equal or higher in rank than the
delinquent and rightly so, because the Presenting Officer does not
adjudicate a cause but only presents the case of the department before the
Enquiry Officer and merely because the circular of the State Government
says that ordinarily a Presenting Officer should be of equal or higher rank,
would not vitiate his appointment unless it is established that any
prejudice is caused to the delinquent.
Thus, the appellate court held that the appointment of an Enquiry
Officer as well as Presenting Officer are not contrary to the Rules or
Regulations. The learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any
error apparent on the face of the record warranting any interference in the
review petition. Further, under the garb of the review, the learned counsel for
the applicant cannot be permitted to re-argue the entire matter.
We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record warranting
any interference in exercise of the review power. It is well settled that cases
are heard and decided only once. To make a departure from this statutory
rule, review application must strictly fall within the established parameters. In
the light of settled principle of law in our considered opinion, there is no merit
and substance in the review application as in a review, Court has very limited
jurisdiction circumscribed by definitive limits.
Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
hsp
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by HARSAHAI PATERIYA
Date: 2021.10.04 13:04:48 IST
