•s. IH 'SH.S HISH COURT OP MAaiYA P8ADESH AS JABSLPBR ., ^ (^ '^ w ^' .P. Bo. ^_'ij_ of 1995 ^ PETI-FIONER Ayiib Khan. age<3 about 52 sears, . SOB of Shrl. Jalil Khan, resldeat ef 27 Kholl Vlkas Nagar, Bllaspur, M.P. Versas RESPONDESTS ?— 1 Hanlcipal Corporatlon, Bilaspar -•• through the Ccaamlssioaer, Kunlclpal Corperafclon, Bllaspar, H.E>. 2 The Commissioner, tiunlcipal Corporati-on, Bilagpur, M.P. S Ihe Stafee of Hadhya Pradesh, f ^ fchrough the Priacl.pal secrefcary, Local Self Govemmaat Dspartment:, Vallabh Bhawan. Bhop&L, H.E. I l.<'!e.?:.^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 971 of 1995 Petitioner: Ayub Khan AF R /3.z.o^ Versus Respondents: Municipal Corporation, Bflaspur & others Siagle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agniltotri. Shri M. K, Beg, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Sbri A. S. Kachwaha, Advocate for fhe Respondents No, 1 and 2. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel lawyer for i^spondent No, 3. ORAL ORDER ( 13th Febi-uaiy, 2006) The foUo\iring order ofthe Courtwas passed by Satish K. Agaihotri, J. 1. The petitioner was appoiated as Physical Training Insti-uctor (for short 'PTI'j vide order dated 14.8.1986 (Aimexure P/l) for a probationajy period of two years. The petitioner after havin^ conipleted his probation, reinain continued in service. 2. On 21/30.4.1994 (Annexure P/3) the petitioner was issued a show cause notice imder fhe provisions of Rulcs 49 aad 52 of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Employees RecrLutiaent and Conditions of Sei-vice Rules 1968 (for short 'the Rules 1968') read with Rille 14 offhe M.P. Civil Services (Classi&cation, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 (for short 'the Rules, 1966'), as to why a departniental enquiry be not initiated against him for fhe chajrges contamed ia fhe charge sheet. Along with fhe show cause noti.cc, charge sheet, articles of chaj'ges, Kst of witaesses and docuinents /'. were supplied to fhe petitioner. '^ 3. The charge sheet contaiiied four charges to the effect that, firstly, fhe petitioner was on duty from 1,12.1991 to 10.12,1991 and remained absent from 11.12.1991 to 31.12,1991, and he deUberately niarked his presence in the attendance-register even for his absence period, as siich he has cominitted misconduct under the provisions of Rule 3(1) of the Madhys_ Pradesh CivU Services (Condlict) Rules 1965 (for short 'the Ru-les, 1965'); secondly, fhe petitioner did not have fhe requisite inatriculation pass quaJi&cation, with diploiaa in physical traiiiing, iacludini science subject, at the tinie of his appoui+rnent, as such appointment of fhe petitioner was contraiy to fhe provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules 1968; thirdly, the petitioner while working ia Devki Nandan Girls Higher Secondanr School, Bilaspur ha.s paid a siim of Rs, 20,000/- to a contractor Shri Ashok Ghatge, wifhout pennission of the Chgjrma-n of the School Developinent Comiaittee, when the petitioner was reqilired to deposit the said inoney in ttie Apex Bank, Bflaspur. The condlict of the petitioner also conies withia fhe pun'iew of m.iscond'iict iinder fhe pfomsions of Rule 3(1) of fhc Rules 1965; and fourtUy, fhe petitioner has caused adinission of Shri Rainavtar Pandey S/o Shri Om Piakash Pandey, in. fhe school, niisusing his ofBciai position, which also coiiies wifhui the purview of niisconduct under the provisions ofRiile 3(1) offhe RLdes 1965. 4. The enquuy officer was appoiated. After holding the enquuy ui detail, the enquiqr ofiicer subinitted his report on 3rd June, 1994 (Annexure P/4), holding fhe Charges No. 1, 2 and 3 as proved, and chEirge No. 4 coiild not be proved, as it required detailed ;aquu~}r. -4, it. E^ •-1 3Ip aiOJSq S3SS3IEI.tM 3Tp. 3inTOBX3 o^ .'Ctiani-loddo xre u3Ai5 ^ou SBM jsaoq.i^sd sq^ yeip. punojg sqqi SSIRJ ^oa pip .laaoi^sd 3qj, •3I[tp ^Sjg 3T.I+ JQJ 'pssddB jo oiaaai 34} TXI 'S3SS3iqiA Siy. sui.aiexa ssojo o^. Atiurtjjoddo SaipiAojd ^oa jo punojS sip pasiBj s-eq jsuoitrtsd sqj, 'sasssiqiAi aip SUIUIBXS ssojo 0} p3Aio]p3 ^OH SBA^ jsuoi^i^ad sq^ piru aoussqB Siq ui painiirexs 3J3A1 sassatqiA's. sip si3 SuuBsq jo ^iun+ioddo ITB u3Ai3 ^ou SB^ jauOTtTj.sd 3I.B. fBTQ puno.iS aq+ uo g'o^ ^uspuodssy 3lp Aq psssBd (g/'d arnxsnuv) fr6'erfrl pa^ep jspio pire (g/d a.inxaLmv) t'G'Z.'SE/eS pS^Bp -t3pJO 3TQ. qSBllb O^ llupoailp B gapl33S 'ElpUJ JO UOR.tTtLJ.SUOO 3i[}. jo 9gg api4.tv japun uoi(L).ad siip psig 8134 jauoppsd sqj^ •g- •p3addl3 aip. psssiinsip piiB ^UOlp.llE AlBUIldpSlp 3q^ SB y:3&\ SB 3.33^0 AjinbuS 31:0. JO sgutpug sip. ppqdii ^uoqi.n'e ai.Bi[3ddi3 sqj, -uisip simirexa-ssojo ^ou plp 3t[ pUG 83SS314U& 31fl. 3UIUIBX3 SSOJO O^ Aj.iun^ioddo U3Al3 SBA .I3U01^p^3d Slfl. ^Elp SlIIplOq iB3ddl3 sq^ psssiuisip (g/'d sjnxsiniv) fr66l 'Jaqmsoaa ipt'I p3+Bp J3p.TO s^ Aq i.uaiaius-AOO 3+13+5 sqj, •^ •1U3TUU.J3AOO 3+Bl.g 3TB. O^ 9S6T '1.0V uopuiodicQ iedpian]^[ qssp'ejd B^qp^i^ jo (^) 09 aop.oas japun (^,/d sjnxsBuv) leaddB Aio^n^B^s UB psig -isnotj.tj.ad sqj, •^osjgs a^Bipsaiim ip.iA.-iauopii.ad aip Tiodn ^soiAjas laojj ^BAOOISJ: jo ^aaTirqsixind sq^ pssocliin pue ^iodai ^{.unbua 3Lp ipTA paaiSe (9/d aiiixaauv) t>66T'/,'££p3l.Bpjap.io siq 3plA joi.Bj^siiiluipv sqj, •9 •17661'9'epa^P sori.ou asoBO Aoqs aip o^ ^dai siq ^rmqns o^ pairej j3aoi^p(3d sqj, ^saiAias THO.g iBAoiuai, ipiA paqsrand ^OTI aq .isaortitad 3ip ^CqA o^ SB '^iodaj Annbaa Tpu& SUOIB '(g/d a-iiixauHv) fr66T'9'£ P3P3P 30BOTI 3sn133 ADtIS B a3Ai3 SBA -tauoititad aqj, •9 .'^f •!s' .'.^' '^; v."-'& .•^•!i.. ^ Sy authorities below. The petitioher did not reply to the show cause notice wifh enquiry report given to hiin. 9. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, learaed counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 aad Shri Ftankaj Shrivasteva, leamed counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 submit, per contra, fhat fhe petitioner has been given fiiU opportunity of hearing and the subniission fhat the witaesses were not exaiained before him and he was not given opportiuiity to cross examuie fhe witaesses has already been exaniined by fhe appeUate authority a-ad tlie appellate authority has come to fhe conclusion fhat the petitioner was given fufl opportuni'ly to cross examiae the witaesses aad fhe petitioner hiinself did not cross exaianie the ^iritnesses. Leamed coiinsel further subinits that in view of the facts tliat the enquir;^ report has been upheld by fhe disciplmaiy aiithority as weU as by the appeBate authorily, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articlc 226/227 of fb.e Constitution of India should not intei-fere and is-appreciate. the evidence and conie to a difieicnt conclusion which may also be one of piobable conclusions. 10, The Suprcme Court in Govt. ofT.N. aad others Vs. 8. Vel aj (1997) 2 S.C.C. 708 has held that 'the fmding recorded by the Enquiiy Officer and confimied by fhe appeUate autliority were based upon the evidence led during the enqiury and it was not even contended that the said fiudings were perverse. It was, fherefore, not open to fhe Tribunal to record contfary fuidiags and hold fhat the charge against the i-espondent was not proved." 11. After having heard leamed coitasel for the parties and having perused the records appended to the petition as wetl as i^tum, I am of the view that the subinissions inade by leamed ^- counsel for ftie petitioner can not be countenanced as the record clearly shows fhat fhe petitioner was given fiill opporttuiity ia' the enquiry aud thereafter the petitioner had also fuU opportunity to present his case before the disciplinaiy aufhority as weU as the appeUate authority. The conclusions recorded by fhe disciplniaiy aufhority and approved by the appellate autitiorily, are based on fhe cogent evidence and no perversity has either been pleaded or fouiid, and as siich it does uot caU for scay interference. 12. For fhe reasous state above the petition is dismissed. No ori.er as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agmhotrt Jiidge Thakur '^ a?r:;1: !/-;• !: