--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITITION NO. 677 / 2005 ALIMUDDIN MANSURI (DEAD) THROUGH LRs Vs. STATE OF M.P. & 3 ORS., * * * * * O R D E R ( 9/8/2011) The petitioners before this court who are the legal heirs of late Alimuddin Mansuri are challenging the order of termination dt. 26/6/01 terminating the services of late Alimuddin Mansuri, the deceased Government servant as well as the order dt. 23/3/05 by which the appeal against termination has been dismissed. The contention of the petitioner No.1 is that her husband was an employee of the State Government under the Ministry of Culture and was employed on 21/4/73 as a Caretaker. He was posted at Hinglajgarh Durg, Distt. Mandsaur. In the writ petition it has been further stated that on 22/10/85 a theft took place and certain idols were stolen and some of them were also damaged by the thieves. It has been further stated in the writ --- 2 --- petition that late Alimuddin Mansuri was on casual leave from 19/10/85 to 21/10/85 and the factum of theft came to his knowledge only on 22/10/85. It has been further stated that he was a Caretaker of the Museum / Fort and 3 persons namely Ghasi, Madan and Goverdhan were working as Chowkidars. It has been stated in the writ petition that late Alimuddin Mansuri after availing the casual leave reported back on duty on 22/10/85 and immediately informed the higher officers on 22/10/85 itself. The facts further reveal that a show cause notice was issued in respect of the incident of the year 1985 on 14/3/90 and a reply was promptly submitted by the deceased government servant on 5/4/90. However, a charge sheet was issued by the department under Rule 14 of the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 only on 13/1/95. After conducting a detailed Departmental Enquiry an order dismissing late Alimuddin Mansuri was passed on 26/6/01 and being aggrieved by the order of dismissal an appeal was preferred before the competent appellate authority and the same was dismissed on 23/3/05. This --- 3 --- present writ petition has been preferred in the year 2005 itself by late Alimuddin Mansuri and on 19/8/06 late Alimuddin Mansuri has expired. The present petitioners are legal heirs of late Alimuddin Mansuri and they have confined their prayer only to the extent of quashing of order of termination dt. 26/6/01 as well as the order passed by the appellate authority dt. 23/3/05. Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly stated before this court that the deceased Government servant as he is not in existence, now the question of reinstatement does not arise and keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case the present petitioners are not claiming backwages also in the matter. However, they are challenging the order of dismissal only to ensure that family pension and other terminal dues are paid to the widow and other legal heirs in accordance with law. A reply has been filed on behalf of the State Government and the stand of the State Government is that the petitioner being a caretaker was a responsible person posted at Fort Hinglajgarh Durg, Distt. Mandsaur and he was habitual in availing casual leave without there being any --- 4 --- leave application. It has been further stated that a theft took place on 21/10/85 and late Alimuddin Mansuri has not informed the higher officers in time nor the local police about the theft and on the contrary has misguided the police authorities in respect of the theft. It has also been stated that he has also threatened his subordinates who were working on the post of Chowkidar and as the conduct of the petitioner has resulted in theft of antiques and charge sheet was rightly issued on 13/1/95 and after conducting a detailed enquiry, punishment order has been passed dismissing late Alimuddin Mansuri from service during his life time and the appeal has also been dismissed by passing a detailed and exhaustive order and therefore order dt. 26/6/01 and order dt. 23/3/05 does not warrant any interference. It has been further stated that the Departmental Enquiry was held strictly in consonance with the provisions as contained under the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the principles of natural justice and fair play have also been followed by respondents while conducting the Departmental Enquiry. It has also been --- 5 --- argued that the punishment is commensurate with the guilt of the employee and the question of interference in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed on 21/4/73. He was regularised as a Caretaker under the Ministry of Culture, State of MP and was posted at Hinglajgarh Durg, Distt. Mandsaur. A theft took place on 21/10/1985. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner was not present on the day the theft took place. The order of termination which is enclosed as Annexure P/14 at page 52 in paragraph 5 itself reveals that late Alimuddin Mansuri, the deceased employee, was not present on the day the theft took place. The order also reveals that he was unauthorisedly absent. The same findings are in existence in the enquiry report. However, the deceased government servant has categorically stated before the enquiry officer as well as in reply to his show cause notice that he was on casual leave from 19th to 21st of --- 6 --- October 1985. In the present case, the alleged theft took place on 21/10/85 and the department rose from slumber only in the year 1995 meaning thereby after a decade by issuing a charge sheet on 13/1/95. It is certainly true that earlier also a show cause notice was issued on 14/3/90 to which a reply was promptly filed on 5/4/90 by late Alimuddin Mansuri. However, the department again took no steps for a period of 5 years and it was only in 1995 a charge sheet was issued on 13/1/95. Respondents again took 5 years time to conclude Departmental Enquiry and enquiry report was submitted on 13/12/2000 and a final order was passed on 26/6/2001 dismissing late Alimuddin Mansuri from service. An appeal was preferred in the matter and as the appeal was not being decided by the appellate authority an order was passed by this court in WP No. 2142 / 2003, Alimuddin Mansuri Vs. State of MP and others and vide order dt. 3/3/04 this court has directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits within a period of 3 months. The appeal has finally been decided on 23/3/05 meaning thereby after almost 5 years from the date of order --- 7 --- of punishment was passed. The facts of the case establishes that the State Government took almost 20 years to conclude the Departmental Enquiry including passing of final order by the appellate authority, from the date of incident. It has also been brought to the notice of this court that Alimuddin Mansuri was under suspension during the period the disciplinary proceedings were pending against him and he is no more as on date on account of his death on 19/10/06. As already stated earlier the legal heirs are not claiming backwages or any other dues except terminal dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the apex court in the case of State of MP Vs. Bani Singh reported in (AIR 1990 SC 1308) and his contention is that keeping in view the aforesaid judgment the disciplinary proceedings, the order of punishment and the order passed by the appellate authority which is operating against the deceased Government servant deserves to be set aside. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and in the aforesaid case the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the employee therein after --- 8 --- more than 12 years and no explanation was offered for inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo. In the present case, also no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the respondents in issuing the charge sheet on 13/1/95 on account of an incident which took place on 21/10/85 except for making a bald statement that a theft case was registered and a show cause notice was issued on 14/3/90 also. The respondents, in case a show cause notice was issued on 14/3/90 and as a reply was filed on 5/4/90 should have passed some order as early as possible. However, no orders were passed based upon the show cause notice dt. 14/3/90 and a charge sheet was issued on 13/1/95 meaning thereby after a lapse of 10 years of the incident. Not only this, the enquiry report reveals that late Alimuddin Mansuri was on leave from 19 to 21 October, 1985 (Casual leave) and the aforesaid statement was made by him repeatedly before the enquiry officer, before the disciplinary authority as well as before the appellate authority. He was working as a caretaker and not as a Chowkidar and after reporting on duty on 22/10/85 he has promptly informed the authorities on the --- 9 --- same day ie., on 22/10/85 in respect of theft which took place in the matter. Resultantly, the findings arrived at in respect of charge No.1 and 2 are also perverse findings and deserves to be set aside. It is true that the scope of interference in the matter of department enquiry is quite limited. However, in the present case, as findings arrived at by the enquiry officer are perverse findings and there is inordinate delay in concluding the Departmental Enquiry, the order of punishment dt. 26/6/01 and the order passed by the appellate authority dt. 23/3/05 deserves to be set aside and are accordingly quashed. Writ petition stands allowed. Late Alimuddin Mansuri has expired on 19/10/06 and therefore the respondents shall treat him in service for all practical purposes except for grant of backwages and for grant of difference of salary. The respondent shall pass necessary orders in respect of pay fixation of the deceased employee and by treating him in service upto 19/10/06. The respondents shall finalise the payment of terminal dues and --- 10 --- family pension which is to be payable to the petitioners. The aforesaid exercise of finalising the case in respect of family pension and other terminal dues be positively concluded within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is needless to mention that in case the exercise of granting terminal dues and family pension is not concluded within a period of 4 months, the petitioners shall also be entitled for interest @ 8.5% p.a., from the date of death of late Alimuddin Mansuri till the amount is actually paid to the petitioners. With the aforesaid this petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR