$m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH m W5“ BILASFUR WVESION B”ENCH CGRAM: Uhll’Dl HCN‘BLE E SHRI Q RAJEEV GUPTA. CJ. & ”um: uLL oHR! $UN§L KUMAR giNHA, J. Writ Petition {S} N0.2789 of 1999 PeEit‘ioners " 1 State of MF’ (Now Chhattisgarh): Thmugh Secretaw, Department sf Water Resources Department, (Earléer :rrigation Dem), DKS Ehawen, Mantraiaya, Raipur (CG) The Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godavar£ Beam (£rr§gat§on} Raieur (CG) Versus Resgondent‘s 1 (1) 3anjay Dubey (son), aged about 42 yere, Rio HG 634, ,Secwr. 2, Pt Deer. Dayai Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur (CG) (2) Jitendra Dubey (Son), aged about 4O years (3) Sanjeev Dubey (Sen), aged about 38 . years (4) Vijay Dubey (Son). aged about 31 years, LR(2) to (4) are Rle Bazar Line, (CG) Chhuikhadan District — Rajnandgaon (5) Smt Rashmi Devi (Daughter), aged abeut 36 years, R/o Sectcr -6, Read (CG) NOIM, Block 4, Bhrrai Nagar, Dist: Durg ('6) Smt Mausami (Daughter), aged about 34 years, R/e C 48 A, CCL Coieny, Subhash Brock, Near Post Officer, Korba, District — Korba (CG) The MP State Administrative Tribunai at Jabaipur through ite Registrar , Presenf : 8hr: Shrf Alok Pawan Bakshi, Kesharwani, Government counse! Advocate for? (1) for‘fhe to (6}. State. {12m March, 29w; The faRawing order of the Com was passed by Jabeipur in Originai Application R§§eev Gupia, C.J."‘ Learned counsei for The parties are heard. 2) Petitioner State has fiied this writ petition against he impugned oreer dated 30.11.1998 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, No.1022/89. 3) Appi 09.10.1987 whereby the petitioner was removed from service. 4) gainst Nand Kumar ve other officials of the irrigation Department, punishment of removal from service was im ication before the Tribunal seeking quashing of the order dated in a joint departmental enquiry held a oubéy and rt Dubey, posed on Nend Kumar LL hhandarkar and RN Joshi. The two other deiinquents » 1A Siddiqui and HR‘Jawa died during the pendency of the departmental enquiry. 5) Appiication before the Tribunal. The said Origina No.2334/8§ was allowed by the 30.08.1997, i Application Tribunal vide order dated and the punishment of remova above order of the l was set aeide. The ' Application 2334/89 filed by LL Bhandarkar, Executive Engineer Ithe subject matter of chaiienge in the writ petition No.482/1999 fiied by the $tate of Madhya Pradesh in the High Churt which was finaiiy decided vide order dated 19.67.2606. The High Court whiie dismissing the writ petition fiied by the State upheid the Order‘passed by the Tribunai whereby punishment of ’ removaiwas setaside. The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) chaiienged the order dated 19.07.2005 passed by the High Court in WP No.482/1999 by fiiing a Special Leave Petition before the Apex, Court. The said Special Leave Petition (Civii) No.4462’2007 was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 16.04.2007. The Tribunal in para 16 of the impugned order observed : " 16. Therefore, on the basis of said two decisions of the Division Bench of this Tribunai we aiiow this petition and quash the impugned order dated 9.10.87 (Annexure i.) so far it reiates to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. Payment of backwages shaii be decided by the appointing authority under the provisions contained in Ruie 54 and 54-A of Fundamentai Rules. Apart from considering the payment of back wages in accordance with Ruie 54 & S4-A of FR, the appointing authority shaii also hoid an enquiry within 3 months of communication of this order to them as to whether the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere. if it is found that the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere then ML * 0% ”V W M adjustment shail be made in accordance with sub Me 5 of Rule 54-A of M.P.F.R.” 8) As it was a case of joint departmentai enquiry against Nand Kumar Dubey, LL Bhandarkar and others and in the case‘ of LL Bhandarkar it was held that the departmental enquiry stood vitiated on account of noncompiiance of principies of natural justice, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Nanci Kumar Eubey following the order passed ln the case of LL Bhandarkar cannot be found fault with in View of the earlier judgment of the High Court which was afiirmedby the Apex Court. 9) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal 'which‘ may warrant interference by this Court. 10) The writ petition, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) Consequently, interim order dated 03.05.2002 stands vacated automatically. i2) No order as to costs. - L .7 {W Sd/- ,7 . i. sd/_ TL\ " ¥ Chief Justice Sunil Kumar Judge Sinha it; g