IN THE M.P.SrATE ABi 1NISIRATIVE TRiajNAL, BBICTI AT- BAIPUR ^. •n?/rST'Tl -?-^3 [. BETK^ APM.ICA8T VINOD R@M AGE - 39 YEARS SGN OF S'ai TOLSI RIM SiARMA POSTES AS—GRAM ^HAYAK AT—BLOOt PATW, BIST.- DURG R|G—VILL^SB- GOEPHIBWI, BLOCK - PATAB, BIST.- BURS (M^>.) ^l:i^'!;. «iijB:!;!' RESPCNBWTS 1. STATE OF MAEMaYA FRADESK THRGDOl - THB SECRET r MMISTRY OF SOCIAL WLFARE VALLABH BHAWW, BI3GPM. 2. THE CGMMISSICNER, PAKCtaAYAT MS SOCIAL aELFARE WBHYA PRABE®,BHQPM. 3. THB OOLLEGTOR, DrSTRICT!- BWTaABA <MJ>.) I'ltt'l!]? JiETAILS OF ARPt.ICariON 1. PARTIOJLlWtS OF THE APPLIGWT 2. gARTICEJLARS OF TSE AS abeve la eause tltle. fts abeve in cacise tltls. AGAINST WIGH APPLICATICM E :<ur@-A/7 11. 3. PARTICULARS OF THE BEING MADE s- i. DER N0. i 296/?S7/? ^^fT^99-200@ DATE i @4.10.1999 Annexure-A/7 PASSEB BY t The-Gol-1eetor, Dtst.-Bantewada. iv. SOBJB3T IN B&IEF »BP aforesaid order.dt. 41.10»99 vid®Afiaextire-A/7 the ^pllcan't has been lBq»esed panlsh- a«»tof withhelding ene aitnaal grade IncreaffleBt wlth eaaulative eFfect and llBlted the suqaension pariod to the sybsistaRce allewaace only.-Bslng aggrleved the applieant has subnitted a departmental eppeal agalnst •the-order,dt. 4»10.99-butithas beea rejacteel wlthout coBsiderl.ag the applicant, hence -thls e^plicatlon. SSiS VSSSif XI-HC-78 'SSf .<||qicl<|, SlTn<1'IG, Iqcliyy *11*IWI sb*11<b l» o.'.^.'i3..•l^Pt 200 9<t^!fi <4atn ('i?lt^'si<<e<) sn^rqirf^.ira; craraii^iii shii* ^RiraTHfsffsn^T chi<iIft<Tl'l w4clT ^fte[^t" ^RSR ^sri^rsn^r 5.6.2006:- Shri R.K. Kesharwani, couns^ Shri Satish Gupta, Deputl respondents. Heard both the counsel. By this petition, the petitioner correctness of the order dated Dantewada in departmental enquj whereby a penalty of withholdingl cumulative effect and limited the s| aliowance only has been imposed. appellate order dated 29-2-2000 whereby the appeal of the petitio^ barred. Perusai of record shows Magistrate/Collector is whollycontra|i In the conclusion of the report OfRcer, Block Konta, the enquiry ievelled against the petitioner was| order Annexure-A/7 dated 4-10-99 O enqulry report, al! the charges standj is totally contrary to the enquiry rej) therefore, the order of Collector contrary to the report of enquiry offict As far as the appellate order| has been dismissed by considei| |1 for the petitioner. k Govt. Advocate for the State/ |has questioned legaiity, propriety and 14-10-99 passed by the Collector, |ry instituted against the petitioner one annual grade increment with ipspension period to the subsistence |-le has also questioned legality of the Ipassed by the appellate authority ler has been dismissed being time th^t the order passed by the District ra]ry to the report of the enquiry ofRcer. sijibmitted by the Block Oevelopment o|ficer held that none of the charges proved, whereas, in the impugned i|he Collector has heid that as per the proved. This finding of the Collector >ort submitted by the enquiry officer, js without jurisdiction and same is ir. |dated 29-2-2000 whereby the appeal ing time barred is concerned, an g^^?;!,T:^P^ XI-HC-78 3^ '<ll<<lcl<<, BTdu'ls, Rldl+fy *TTWII St»*1|c»l W^ 200 3ii^i >4aw (yit^sis.d') sn^rqiT )?•(!?; OTT3ff^Tsn*(lti Barve w >.^ ?T<iWHf^T3n^T appiication ror condonation of dela^ the said application. For the foregoing reasons, are liable to be quashed. In the result, the petition is| dated 4-10-99 passed by She Collecjtor quashed. Parties are entitled for certifit |am of the opinion that both the orders lallowed and the order Annexure-A/7 ttor and the order dated 29-2-2000 are 'blllfl'fl-l t|IHCTT?'te^<Rl«K ^>3lf^lT3TI^T was filed, but th^re is no decision on d copy of this order. Sd'- ^.C.Bbadoo 3udge