Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Tikamchand on 11 March, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT APPEAL No. 231 of 2021
Between:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHOPAL, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRINCIPAL REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PLOT
NO. 220 REVENUE BUILDING ARERA HILLS
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI MANISH NAIR - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
AND
TIKAMCHAND S/O LATE SHRI REWAMAL JAIN
OCCUPATION: RETD C/O NEELESH KUMAR
GUPTA, GALI NO 3, SHARAD NAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AJAY JAIN - ADVOCATE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge passed the following:
ORDER
The present intra court appeal filed under section 2(1) of the MP Khand
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN
Nyaya Pith Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated
SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.03.16
17:26:17 IST
13.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.4888 of 2019,
whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner has been
allowed.
The facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred as writ
petitioner) has filed a petition challenging the charge sheet as well as the
departmental inquiry initiated against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was
initially appointed on the post of Tehsildar in the year 1983. After completion of
more than 30 years of service, he applied for VRS in the prescribed form.
However, the appellants did not decide the application preferred by the writ
petitioner. The writ petitioner approached this Court in WP No.23040 of 2018.
The said writ petition was disposed off by order dated 06.10.2018 directing the
appellants (respondents therein) to decide the pending application for voluntary
retirement of the writ petitioner within the period of 30 days. In pursuance of the
order passed by this Court on 23.01.2019 appellants accepted the writ
petitioner's voluntary retirement application and retired him with effect from
07.09.2018.
The charge sheet was issued to the petitioner for misconduct allegedly to
be conducted by the writ petitioner in the year 2014 i.e. four years ago before
issuance of the charge sheet. The writ petitioner filed his reply to the charge
sheet on 29.09.2018. Being aggrieved by the same, the petition was filed before
this Court. It was submitted that the said charge sheet is contrary to the
provision of Rule 9 of the MP Civil (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred
to as Pension Rules). The departmental inquiry is initiated against the writ
petitioner after his retirement, therefore, as per Rule 09 of Pension Rules can be
instituted only after obtaining sanction from the Governor but no such sanction
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.03.16
has been obtained in the present matter.
17:26:17 IST
It has also been submitted that by issuing the charge sheet, appellant no.2
has also violated the provision of Rule 9 (2)(b) of the Pension Rules, which
clearly provides that the departmental proceedings shall not be instituted on any
event which took place more than four years ago and in the present case, the
charge sheet has been issued regarding misconduct allegedly to have been
conducted in the year 2014.
On these grounds, it has been submitted that the charge sheet is liable to
be quashed. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of MP Vs. T.N and Another
reported in 2001 (1) MPLJ 587.
The appellants (who shall be referred hereinafter as respondents in the
writ petition) filed their reply and stated that a show cause notice was issued
against the writ petitioner on 02.06.2015 while he was in service, and thereafter,
the Commissioner has directed the Collector to initiate a departmental inquiry
against the writ petitioner. Thus, the departmental inquiry was already initiated
against the petitioner with effect from 02.06.2015.
The decision for initiating the departmental inquiry against the writ
petitioner was already taken in the year 2015 i.e. prior to issuance of show
cause notice.
Learned Single Judge has considered the Rule 9 of the Pension Rules
wherein, it has been prescribed that the departmental inquiry against a retired
government servant shall not be instituted without sanction of the Governor. It
is not in dispute that no sanction has been taken from the Governor before
initiating the departmental inquiry against the writ petitioner.
As per the facts of the case, the voluntary retirement application was
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.03.16
17:26:17 IST
accepted by the respondents on 23.01.2019 with effect from 07.09.2018. Thus,
the writ petitioner shall be deem to be voluntary retired with effect from
07.09.2018. Admittedly, the charge sheet issued after the said date. Merely by
issuance of show cause notice it cannot be said that the departmental inquiry is
initiated against the writ petitioner, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly
held that the show cause notice cannot be considered to be charge sheet and
the initiation of departmental inquiry has to be taken from the date when the
charge sheet has been issued.
Learned Single Judge has also considered the Rule 9(2)(b) of the Pension
Rules that the departmental inquiry can be initiated for the misconduct which is
alleged to have committed after four years of the retirement. In the present case,
charge sheet has been issued on 29.09.2018 to the writ petitioner against the
alleged misconduct which is said to be committed in the year 2014, which is
also contrary to the rules.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality in the order passed
by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present intra court
appeal.
Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pending interlocutory applications are also disposed off.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Sourabh
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.03.16
17:26:17 IST
