-TT^ BEFORE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRftTIVE TRIBLINAL R^IPUR BENCH. RAIPUR 9,P, t^C^ TW2^1 O.A.Na. APPLICANT PETITigNER 99 RAMESH ROTKAR ABE ABOUT 58 VEAFiS, son of S»R. Shri Rotkar ^ Superintendent„ Blind^ Deaf and Durnb School , BILASPUF^ M.P. VERSUS t,.^ NON APPLICftNTS RESPONDENTS Stat© af M..F\n through The SecretaryH Panchayat and E?ocial ^jel •?• are Departrnent Val 1 abh Bh a^an . BAHOF'AL N« F'.. DJ.RECTOR, Panchyat and social Ne 1 f ar e Dep ar t men t », 80vt. of M«P. BHOPAL M«P» CDmmi ssioner n Sac i a 1 1^1e ]. f ar e „ M,P., Pan c h ayat an d Oovt. of Bhopal JOINT D:1:F'£:;CTOR, t5oc i a 1 Ne 1 i are B i 1 aspu.r Di v i si an 9 BILASPUF; M.P,. F'a r? <:: ^"i ayat an d Departrnent Oovtu of MuP. -...I •\\'^ BJ^^ICAT.I.QN UNDER SEC11QN 19 QF IHE AI;)MINISIRAT.IVE. ACI 3_985^. TRIBUNAL ^^^%^ /f^ \cr? HIGH C50URT OF CHHATTISOARH, BILA8PUR 8INGLB BENCH : HON*BLE 8Hm MANIHDRA MOHAN SIIRIVABTAVA^I. PBTITIONBR RBSPONDBNTS Writ Petition (81 Ho.3057/200S Ramesh Rotkar Ver»u» State ofM.P. (now C.G.;and ollxers QRDBR tft'^ POST ON I^JUNE. 2010 Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude M 's ^ %. ';i^&3 'i ••:%s^- r ^, \^\ HI©HCOURTPPCHHATTt8Q|yRH:ML^ 8INGff-B BBNCH : HOM*BLE SHRI MAIUNDRA MOUAB < RIVA8TAVAdJ. PBTITIOHBR RE8POHDBNTS Wrlt Petitlon (81 IIo.30S7/2005 Ramesh Rofkar Veisus State of M.P. (now €.0.)and offaers Appearaace: Smt Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for the petititonar. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Oovt, Advocate for fhe State, ORDKR (Passed on /^.06.2010) 1, By fhis petition, tfae petitioner has impi^gned fhe order dated 25,9,1999 (Aanexure A-l) passed by Uxider Secretaiy, Govemmient 6f Madliya Pradesh, Departoient of Social Welfare, by which a ma^or penalty of reversion has been miposed on the petitioner aad tihe petitioiier has been reverted from fhe post ofSupermtendent 2, Case offhe petitioner is that he was ioitially appdmted on 1S,11,1^0 as a Teacher ia fhe Education Department He was later o»selected a^ Probationary Officer m. fhe Social Welfare Departmcait of de State Govemment Vide order dated 29.7.1982 (Annexure A-3), petitioaer was promoted as Superintendent WIiile the petitiotier waa so continumg, a chaige sheet dated 4.3.1994 (Aaaiiexiure A-2) was isaued leveliag as many as 6 chaarges against him. It is averred (hat apoa receipt ofcharge sheet, petitioner, vide his applications dated 9.3.1994 PQSf S SSSi -2- (Annexure A-4), 18.3.1994 (Annexure A-5) & 22.4.1994 (Amiexiue A-6) demanded supply ofphotocoiy oftiie documents enlisted iii fhe charge sheet so as to eaable liim to prcpare his written submissioii, but respondents did not suppty nor aUowed iaspection oflliose dociimaats, However, the petitioner was compeUed to submit his written rcpty wifhout supply/inspection ofprosecution documents a&d fke petiLtioaer submitted his repfy dated 25.8.1994 (Aimexure A-8). Vide @idcr dat^ 8,2.1995 (Annexurc A-7), Enquiry Officer was also appomted, It m further case of fhe ^titioner fhat tiie Enquiiy OjGBcer examixied the prosecution witaiesses behiad his back aad the pelltioner waa not afforded opportunily to cross-exaixmie (he prosecution witnesses, Petitioner was also not given opportumily to seelc appoiirtment of defeace assistaiit. On 10,9.1997, Enquuy OflBcer subiaiitted his report. On the basis offhe said report, Commissioner, Panchayat and Samaj Seva, issued show-cause xiotice to petitioner on 16, liO, 1997 (Aius^?atrc A-9) requiring fhe petitiosier to submit his written reqply. Vide letter dated 6,11.1997 (Annexure A-10), petitiaaer rcquested for exfensioia of time to file repfy. Petitioner also submitted a letter dated 24.11,1997 (Axuiexure A-11) requestmg for certain clarifications, Pinatly, a written reply was submitted by fhe petitfoner on 17.12.19^7 (Annonue A-12) and the same was also subixiitted before fhe Comm&s»i@aer diirmg personal appearance on 23,9.1999, Case of fhe petiMoner is that wifhout consideriag his reply, The Disciplmaxy Authoilty vide impugaed oider dated 25.9.1^9 (/tancxure A-l) iaiposed a major penally ofrcversion fix>m the post ofSuperintendeiit 3. Leanied counsel for fhe petttioner ai^ued fhat fiie iB^pugEied order of puidshmient and the entfcre enquiiy is vi^iatod on accouut of fhe fact /i. i' t^... . I "^^ 1 1 ^. ^ -3- %: l^-,..:" ^ 1°^ fc fhat fhe enquiry was based on a 10 years' oM audit rcport for fhe penod 1984 to 1987. Initiatiati ofenquixy on the basis <xf sxuch aa old report wifhout aay basis sufiTers from gross delay aad the cons^pient order of penalty is Uable to be quashed on this count aloiie- Further, submission of leamed counsel for fhe petitioner is that thDugfc tlie petitioner demaaded prosecution documents aad many other relevant documents fhrough his appUcations dated 9.3,1994 (AEmexure A-4) 18.3.1987 (Annesaire A-5) & 22.4.1994 (Aanexure A-6), fhose documents werc never supplied aad tlierefore sericms prejudice was caused to fhe petitiloner. On account of fhis, the entire enquuy is vitiated. Further submission is fhat fhe prosecution witnesses werc examined during fhe course ofenquiry ia fhe absence offhe petitioner and fhe petitioner was not afiToxded opportunity to cross-examiae fhose witaesses which seriously prejudiced case of fhe petitioner resulting in gross vk)latk>a ofprmcqples of iiataral juslace. K has ateo beea argued fhat none offhe charges leveled agabist fhe petitiooer were provedy yet the Enquiiy OflGicer on ipse-dvcit, recorded fhat charges are either proved or partly proved. Further submission is that penusal of the findiiigs of Enqmiy OflBcer would show that even tlious|hi fhere was 130 xnaterial to draw iDference ofgiult oa tihe touchstone of prcpondemnc^; of probabUities, the Enquiry OfiBcer recorded fhe charges either as proved or partty proved beused on conjectures aad siiraaises, Further subinission ofleamed counsel for fhe petitioner is fhat a perusal of the enquiry reportwould show fhat heavy reUaiice was placed oa fhe aaidit report while holditig chai^e No.l (3^ proved; chaxge Na 1 (10 partly proved, As fhe audit report fonaed part of fUe pcarsec^tioix enUsted documents which were not suppUed to the petitioner, (he enthe enquiry was vitiated. ?^^s^> -4- to't 4, Per coiitea, submissioa of leanaed <x>unsel J^ fhe re^p€»de33tsis fh^t petitioner was subjected to departoiental enqxdxy oa thte toaste ctf serious allegation of misconduct Upon completioa of eliquiry^ the Enquiry OflBcer submitted enquiry report on 10-9.1997 iawhich sc®ie offhe charges were not found proved, some oftfae charges foiiiid partty proved aad sonie offhe chai^es found proved. Thereafter a shcw-caease notice was issued to tihie petitioiier aad a copy of etiquisy rejiort was also suppUed. Petltioiier subxmtted his rcply to fhe show-cause notice after haviiig due and proper opportunily of goiiig fhroaghi tihe findiiigs rccorded by fhe Enquiiy OfiGicer ia fhe enqiiiiy rcport and (hus he had fiiU opportuiiity of meetibag-out fhe aUegations made agamst him. It is subixiitted fhat upon proof of chai^es to the extent stated io. the enquiry rcport, major penalty of rcversion fix>m fie i%)st of Superintendent was iaiposed which does not call for aay iaiference by fhis Court under Artfcle 226 of the Constitetionof Iiidia. Last submission ofleanied counsel for fhe respondents is that petitioiier ditt not prefer aay representation or appeat agaiast fhe impugaed onler of penalty dated 25.9.1999. 5, I have heard leanied counsel for fhe parties and penised fte rccoxds. 6, This Court had directed fhe respoxidents to produce the entire records of D,E, for perasal of fhe Coiart ia order to test the saibmdssions tegardiag non-supply of documeats, denial of opportuxuly of crbss- exammation of prosecution witnesses and detdal of opportuxiily to engage defence counsel. 7. In fhe petition, petitioner has made specific aBegatioii aad pleadiotgs with regard to iion-supply of dociiments, cross exammatiofiL of ffae yi»giSa^s /fn \ 1 ^s-:^ 1 i "a^"i;b F -5- v° cb ^ '7^te-^^'- prosecution witaesses behiad his back aiid rcfusal d£©ppertiaidtyto appoint defence assistant, but no specific reply of fhiese pteadiags was submitted by fhe respondente in ffaeir retuni except a vague repty of general nature stating fhat fhe eaquiiy was held ia aceordaace with rules aad fhat all allegation not specificaUy adxaitted niay be treated as specifically denied. 8. Froni fhe enquiry report dated 10.9.1997, it is fbund that charge No, 1 (31) has been found proved; charge No. 1 (^r) has been foim.d to be partly proved; charges 1 (^l), 1 (^, 1 (cP), 1 (^a) have not been found proved; chax^e No.2 has been found proved; chai^e No.3 has not taeen found proved; charge No.4 foxind partty proved; charge No.5 foixad partly proved aiid charge No.6 fouiid parUy proved. 9. Petitioner ia his appUcation dated 9,3,1994 (Annexui^ A-4) expressed fhat fix>m fhe charge sheet dated 4,3.1994 issued from the office of Director aiid dated 8.3.1994 issued by fhe Joiat Director, Bilaspiir Division^ it is not clear as to where fhe dociunents and statement of witaesses would be available and tiiat the petitioner is des&rous of iaspection offhe records as also supply ofphotocopy offhis docuniaats aad tihiereforc necessary iastructions may be issiffid, Neiffaer the petitioner nor the respondents have placed on recoid copy of letter dated 8.3.1994. From fhe entire records submitfeed befoTO fhis Court, copy of letter dated 8.3.1994 is not avaflable. However^ it is clear that petitloiier demanded tfae documents of fhe p^osecutfoa. FiTom the a^ecords, it is found fhat earfier certaia jMreUmiiiaiy enqimy was held with regard to functioDiag of the Samprefcshan Grih, Bil^spiir aad Distdct RehabiUtation OJGScer, Bilaspur vide his memo datod 24,2.1992 had submitted a report whkdi is cnlusted as dociinieiit No,5 iti fbue Ust ^^' -6- ^ ofdocuments along wifh fhe charge sheet The Oflicer had rccoxxied the statement of fhe petitioner aad niimber of peraons. Thereafiter, vMe memo dated 11.3.1993, Joint Director, Panchayat flnd Social Welfere, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur forwarded to tfae Director an enqtuiy treport dated 18.8.1992 prcpared by Shri S.M. Awasfhi, tfae tien Depiily Controller, bail press, Bilaspur ui fhe matter of exiquiry agaio^st the petitioaer on certam compteiats, This dociiment is enlisted at Sr, No.8 offhe Ust ofdocuinents appended alongwifh fhe chaj^e sheet The UBt of docuxnents also contams one exiquiiy report prepaicd by Shrl P.D,Bhatt, fhe fhen Distdct RehabiUtation Ofi&c^r, Bilaspur. Ttie petitioner, therefore, demaaded inspection and supply ofpbotocopies of fhese documents as also statement of witiiesses which werc rccoxded ia fhose enquides. This appUcation of fhe petit&oner was foUowed by another appUcation dated 18.3.1994 (Amiexurc A-5), In ^iat application, petitioner, wifh reference to letter dated 8.3,1994 of the Joiat Director, Bilaspur Divisioa (reference of which finds place iii petltioner's letter dated 9.3.1994, Aanexure A-4), stated tiiat petitioxier along with his demi-oJBGicial letter dated 9.3,1994 (Aimexure A-4) had submitted fhe list of documents of the prosecutitoii iiidibatiog documents reqidred by fhe petitioner, Fromi fhe recoxds av^iilable before fhis Court, except document No.l Le. audit report aaid docusnent No,9 ie. order dated 2.8.1989 af the SiipaAateiideirt, petitioner demanded aU fhe dociunents enMsted at Sr, No.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 11. Petitioner clearly stated that he has neifher rcceived aiiy iastructions nor copy of the demanded dociiDiente: He sdso darified that he needs fhose documents to submit his reply. There is on record a letter dated 18»3.1994 of fhe Joiat Director, Panchayat and Samaj Seva, Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur addressed to fhe petitioner statfcag ^^t'%.. -7- \\0 fhat the required documents are not available in his oflBce, In ^esponse to petitioner's appUcation dated 5.3.1994, a memo was issucd by fhe Joiat Director m fhe office of Director, Bhopal on 18.4.1994 fhat petitioner may mspect rclevant records diirmg ofi&ce hour ia the Directorate. In reply to fhe samie, petitioner vide his ietter dated 22.4.1994 (Aanexurc A-6) stated fhat as he has been eiitrusted with election duties, it is notpossible for him to imm^ltetely come to Bhopal and iaspect records. He fherefore reiterated his prayer for supply oftlie documents, He also stated that after receipt dT oopies of the docuixients, he would submit hte reply aiid as he has been entnisted witfa the election duties/ he may be aUowed time tifl conipletion of Pauchayat Elections 1994 aiid to submit his reply after iaspection of records at fhe Directorate level, Thercafter, m response to his letter dated 22.4.1994, a letter was written to fhe petitioneron 10.6.1994 stating fhat petitioner may submit his rcply immediatety after fhe election are over. 10. From the pleadings and material on reconl aad fhe reconls of fhe enquiry subixdtted for perusal of fhe Court, fhere is nothiag on. recoid to show that either before or after submission of rcply to fhe cliarge sheet, petitioner was eifher allowed iaspection of fhe prosecution documents or supplied copies ofall tfaose dociainents. In rcspaase to letter dated 18.4.1994 ofJomt Director m the office of Dircctor, Bhopal, petitionerhad submitted his letterdated 22.4.1994 fhatashehasbeexi entrusted with election duties, it is not possible for him to imiaediately come to Bhopal to mspect the records and he requested for supply osf fhe dociiments. This prayer of fhe petitioner has aowhere becai considered, Records of enquiry show fhat along with appMcatioM dated c^'^ ^ I -8- [\\ 22.4.1994 (Annextire A-6), petitioner had also submftted the orders of the Retumictg Officer entrustmg him wifh the election duties and, therefore, it cannot be said fhat petitibner's demai^ fot suppty of docximents on account ofhis iaabilily to come to Bhopal due to etetrtion: duties was ia any maiiaer imjustified. In tris reply to tfae charge sheet, pctitioner agam reiterated fhat he has not been supplied fhe docuiaents and in the absence of ffaie records, ageneral reply was submitted by fhe petitioaer and he reiterated his demaiid, 11, Froin the entire records placed before this Court, thare is nofhiag to isidicate fhat petitioner was ever allowed inspectioit ofdocumente reMed upon by fhe prosecution to prove the chares agaiast tfae petitioxien Document No.2 of fhe Ust of documeiits has been h^vity relied upon by fhe Enquiry OflGLcer to prove the charge No, r (31). The Enqufay Officer has also inisdirected itself by recordiag fhat fhe petitioner has not proved tiiat fhe chai^ges are mcorrcct or baseless. 12. Departmental Enquiry proceedings are quafii-criBEm^d iii natiirc aiid fhe burden ofproofthe charges rests on prosecutioa though ffae degi?TO ofproofispreponderance ofprobabilities. Taldng into coi^ideratioa fhe natiire of allegation that the petitioner commdtted fhiaiicial irregularity m mentk>mng 10 bags in place of 1 bag of ceiaaetit andi R^55Q/- ia place of Rs.55/- aad fhercby misappxopriated Rs,495/"> ncm-supply of clocilment coinpletely vitiated fhe JSnding recoided fey ttie Eoquiry Ofl5cer, In so far as charge No, 1 («I) is conceraed, fhe eiitire basis of chai^e is shortage of two almiiahs upon physical verificatioa cacried out by the audit team during period ficom 22.8.1986 to 28.8,1986. One ofthe grounds for not accepting fhe petitioner^s defence was (hErt ttie petitioner gave contradictoiy report on 25.8.1986 aiid 22.12.1^B8. ~T ^^y,^^^. ^i -9- "^ •^^.. i? ." am v%Jt"-^^? ufv Taldng iato consideration fhat fhe chai^es rclated to veay old period of 1986 axid charge sheet wsus issued aft^r 8 yeara, in aB famaLess, respondents ought to have disclosed to fhe petitioner fhat these two reports aUeged to be sent by fhe petition^r were proposed to be rcUed upon against fhe petitioner, but none of fhese two doauments were exilisted aloxig with chax^e sheet ia the list of dociiments, Tfae Eoquiiy Ofl&cer has come to fhe conclusion of gtiilt as later on tihe petfetioaer arraaged for fhe shortages. Thus fhe fixidiag of guilt agamst chsrge No. 1 («I) also ^taads vitiated. 13. Charge No.2 agaiast fhe petitioner, to say (he lea^t, is blissfiiilfy v^ue, No specific dates ofaltegpd imaiifhorized absence and leaviag of H.Q, have been stated in fhe chai^e sheet In his reply, fhe petitfoaer dexued the allegation and stated fhat he never lefit fhe H,Q. witliout prior permission, To hold fhat charge proved, Enquiry Ofl&cer has reUed upon letters dated 18.9.1992 aad 24.2.1992. CommiuaGation dated 18.9.1992 was not even enUsted ia fhe prosecutioai documents much less disclosed fhat the same is proposed to be reUedupon.As far as report dated 24,2.1992 is concenied, fhougtt it was Usted a6 document No.5 io^ fhe Ust of documents/ it was xieiltier suppUed xior iaspection aUowed to fhe petitioner. The perversity of ftie findmg is discto»sed finom tihie fact fhat Enqiiixy Offiicer has gone to the extettt of rccordmg fhat fhe petitioner has not disputed fhe saime/wliereas fixMri fhe reply ofthe petitioner, petitloner categoricalty denied fhe allegatioa and stated that he has been leaviag H,Q< on pubUc holidays arfter due iatimation to the Director. Thus, at tihLe first place, ffae charge No.2 was completely vague lacking ia material and specific details aiid secondfy/ respondeats relied upon certsdn coamaiunicaiits which were ^^^^. k"%.. ,?^... 's 'ite^^. %1 '"'^^y^ -10- IV^ neifher supplied nor aUowed to be inspected vitiating fhe fiadiug oa charge No.2, 14. Charge No<4 ia substaace alleged fhat in oxder to deadEve baiefte, petitioner luiaufhorizedly haiided over charge offhepost ofMatron to one Anaad Bharti, L.D.C. and by paying allowaace for holding additional char^e caused financial loss to the Govenimeiit to repty to ctiai'ge sheet, it was stated by fhe petitioner fhat the Matron was sufTermg fiTom Cancer and fhercforc unable to dischai^e her dnties and ultimatefy succuinbed to deafh. In order to enswre propca' functioniiig, additional charge was given to Anaad Bharti. Later on, Anand Bharti had deposited fhe amount of Rs.350/»paid to lum as allowaiice on 2nd May, 1994, It appeare JBrom ffae finding of llie Enquiry Officer tfaat report dated 18.8.1992 of Deputy CoatroUer, Braille Press, Bilaspur was reUed upon to hold (hat pelitioiKr exceeded his authorily, but fhe said documentwas neiliier discloscd t6 ffae petitioner nor copy offhe same was suppUed. The statean®atof Anand Bharati rccorded earUer has also been used as a prosecution document, which also has not been suppfied to fhe petitioner. While holdiag fhat petitioner acted beyond his jiufedictioet aiid.coiximitted irreguladty, no rule or provision dejBimig fhe limite ofaiifhorily offhe Superintendent has been rcferred to. Retura of ftic amount by Anand Bharti did not mean tiaat fherc was any finaiicial iEregularity coDimitted by fhe petitioner ia makmg arraagenient by giviag faim additional cliarge on accouxit of iUness of Matron of fhe hosteL Ixi fbe opiaion of fhis Court, the findiixgs are based on conjectures and surmises apart Jfrom violation of priaciples of natural justice ia iiot disclosing nor supplied to fhe petitioner report dated 18,8.1992, iffa -11. ^vu 15, In so far as proofofchax^e No.5 is concenicd, fbie Eaquiry Ofi&eer has heavily relied upon oider dated 20.7,1990 ofthe Superfaitendesit aad memo dated 17.7.1990 of fhe Govenunent as also report dated 18.8.1992 offhe Deputy ControUer, BraiUe Press, gilaspiir. None of fhese documents were dfeclosed as prosecution documeatB in fhe list ofprosecution documents along wifh chas^e sheet, which vitiated fhe findings on fhis charge as weU, 16. There is yet aaofher glarmg aspeet of fhe depafftiMental eixquiry, which, ia the opmion of this Court has vitiated fhe entte eoquiiy. A perusal 6f llie enquiry report would show fhat IBL order to hold fhe charges proved, fhe Enquiiy Officer reUed upon Itie statements of certam prosecution witnesses. In fact ia paragraph-2 of ffae ciiquiry rcport, fhe Enquixy Officer records as under:- <<y^a<=t>af srf&t^i^ ITO W^T ^Pt^X sinNt ^ 'cp^/ TRTgf ^ ^%-s-i ri;y;i •d7r TR ^ipNt gra f^ ^ 'gtr TNta1°T ^ ^gpr •sie^-ih7]^ 3TRtirqT? w^ yRi^ ^RT IWT? t -" Thls shows tliat fhe Enquiry OfiGicer rccorded tihe statement of witnc^ses and the pefitioner was allowed to ci^oss-examme ffae prosecution witness, While holding charge No. 1 (^ proved, the Enqiiby OjBScer has recorded fhat fhe prosecutioa witaesses have supported fhe charges. While holdiag chai^e No»l (^) proved, ffae Enqiiiry OfiBicer records fhat ffae petifioner did not ciDss-examme (he statement ofwitoesses relatmg to audit team and tfais has beea used as strong circumstaiice to record a findmg that the petitioner accepted the cfaarges, It also mentions that one defence witoess^ Saiideep was also examined. For holdiag charge No.4 as proved, Exiquiry Officer ha^ eisK^. -12 - ^v < reUed upon titie statement of witaesses. Por holding charge No.5 as proved, fhe Enquiiy Oj9&cer has heavfly rclied upon tiie statement of witoesses, Not onty this, the findin^s refer to statexaent of defence witaess Shri S»M.Tioiofhi.As agamst pleadings and grouiids raiMsd by fhe petitioner icL fhe petition that prosecution witnesses were examiaed during fhe course ofenqmiy m fhe absence ofthe petitioner -wifliout affordmg fhe petitioner oppprtoiinily to cross-examme^ no speci&c demal has been made ia fhe retum, The so called recoxdB of enquiry which have been submitted beforc fhis Coiirt by fbie respondents were perused, In the entire records fhesre aro no enquiry proceediiigs recorded by the Enquiiy Officer. It has nowhere been recorded as to on which date which p3x?secution witoess has boen examiaed, It has not been recorded anywhere fhat etther fbe petitioner cross-exammed prosecution witaess/witaesses or reftised to cross-examiae fhem. There arc no records to show fhat any defenae witaesses have been exaimned by fhe petitioner, It is not even fhe case of fhe petitioner fhat he examiaed aay defenae witaess* Thus/ there is neifher any pleadiag nor any material placed befbrc fhis Gourt to dexnonstrate fhat enquiiy was held by fhe Enquiry Ofl^er on vadous dates, witciesses were examiiied/ciossa-examicied> defencfe witaess examined etc< Yetrcference ofstatemeatofwitaessca to prove several charges as discussed ab<we, compeAs fhis Coiut to dfaw mference fhat certain statemeats recorded during preliminary exiqmxy were used by the Enquiry Ofl5cer behmd the back ofthe petitioner, to hold fhose chai^es proved, This is mdicated fix>m fhe fe.et fhatin fhe list of documents statemient of one Anand Bharti was reBed as a prosecution docuiaent The preluniaary enquiry reports referred to ia fhe Ust of documents were never suppUed to fhe petitioxaer rtor tie was ^^•'•i^ -13- atlowed to inspect It is apparent fhat ia some otlier preiuamary enquiry, certaia witnesses werc examined and may be tfaat Ifae petitiorier was allowed to cross-examiae fhem and fhe petitioner had also examiaed some witnesses stated to be defence witaesses, white holdiag rcgular enqujry after issuiag a charge sheet on 4.3.1994, it was iacumbent on the Bnqiury OfiGtcer to rccoixl stateixients offhiose witaesses in order to make the same as part of oi^al evidence to sustain charges agaiast fhe petitioner and to affoxd fhe petitioner an opportunity to cross-examiae fhose witaesses to iDapeach fheir credibility. This is mandatoiy requirement ofrule 14 of fhe M.P,/C,G. Civil Services (Classi&cation, Coxitrol & AppeaJ) Rixles, 1966 m addition to bemg a reqxurement of prmciples ofnatui^djustiLce.Thiis^ fhe entire enquiiy aad consequent order of pumshment am vitiated. The Enquiry Officer mstead of recordiag statement of prosecution witnesses, chose to rely upon fheir prc-recorded statemente itt some ofher prclumdnaiy enquuy io. holdmg fhe char^s 1 (33|/ 1 fsl), 2 4, 5 & 6 as proved/parfly proved, Thoug^i fhe respondeMts axi fheir retiini raised an objection to fhe maiatamability offhepetltionoa fhe groixnd fhat the pethioner did not take rccourse to fhe altemative remcdy of statutoiy appeal and dtrecfty approached tfie Court, coixsideriag fh^t fhis petition has rcmauied pendiag since last morc fhaii a decade atid isi view of tihie finding fhat the iiuipugned order of piajiishaiieiit is vitiated on account of serious violation ofpnnciples ofiiatuTaljustice, the said objection pales into i&sigaificance, 17. In fhe jBnal aaalysis, fhis Court comes to fhe coaclusion ffaat fbe impugned order dated 25.9.1999 (Aiinexure A-l) is illegal axxd (he same is accordingty set aside, -14.. ^ 18. Consideriag fhat the cfaarge sheet was issiied to flie p^itioxier way back in fhe year 1994 and the petitfoncr sufiTeied aa order of reduction ia raak in the year 1999 and had undexgoiie tihie said piinishment aad further fhat tihis petitioxi remadaed pendmg for morc fhaa a decade and also that at fhe time of flling ofpetitioii, petitioaer was aged about 58 years, applyiag fhe ratio la&d dowii by the Sixpreme Court in fhe case ofUnlon of India Vs. Gvan Cliaad Chattar, (20091 12 SCC 78. it would be in fhe mterest ofjustice to cloae the cfaapter wifh a direction fhat petitioner shaU be treated as havmg coiitmiied on his origmal post of Superintendeiit witfa all coiiseqfiential benefits had he contmued ia service 011 fhe post of Supermteiideafc HoweveTy onty 50% of fhe difiference of pay of fhe post of Saperiirtemient aaad Probationary OJGBcer shatl be payable to the petitioner. 19. Conseqiienfly, fhe petition is partfy allowed to the extemt and m the manner iadicated above. Cost made ea^^^^^^^^^^——— SdJ- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude Praveen