Om Prakash Sirohia and Another vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30-09-2004 Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2, whereby the earlier order dated 24-09-2003 passed by the Collector, Morena is cancelled by the respondent No. 2.

The petitioner No. 1 was served with a charge-sheet dated 13-02-2001. The petitioner No. 2 was served with a charge-sheet dated 14-02-2001. The petitioners submitted the reply and denied the charges. It is contended that during posting of the petitioners at Morena, another Sub-Registrar Shri Chakrapani Mishra was also served with same charge-sheet. Shri Mishra filed O.A. No. 532/2001 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal by order dated 27-06-2002 quashed the charge-sheet by reserving a liberty to the respondents to take action in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondents dropped the charge-sheet against Shri Chakrapani Mishra.

The Collector, Morena by relying on the order passed by the Tribunal in Shri Chakrapani''s case, decided to drop the departmental enquiry against petitioner No. 1 Om Prakash Sirohia. The same order is passed on 30-09-2003 in respect of petitioner No. 2. Naresh Kumar Sharma. Thus, the departmental enquiry against both the petitioners were dropped by orders dated 24-09-2003 (Annexure P-8) and 30-09-2003. The respondent No. 2 by order dated 30-09-2004 (Annexure P-9) set aside the said orders by the Collector whereby, enquiry was dropped with further direction to institute enquiry.

During the course of arguments, Shri Pavan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on recent order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 2662/2004 [Shri Chakrapani Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others]. In the said case, after the order of Tribunal, the Collector by order dated 30-09-2003 dropped the enquiry, which was set aside by respondent No. 2 herein by order dated 27-09-2004. This Court opined that the respondent No. 2 has exercised the power under Rule 29 (1)(ii) of M.P. Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1966. The Division Bench in State of M.P. and another Vs. Om Prakash Gupta and another, set aside the order on the ground that the power under Rule 29(1)(ii) cannot be exercised by the head of the Department after six months from the issuance of the order, sought to be reviewed. On the basis of Division Bench judgment in Om Prakash Gupta (supra), the similar order dated 27-09-2004 issued against Shri Chakrapani Mishra, was set aside by this Court. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said order reads as under:--

In the present case, the respondent No. 2 has exercised the power under rule 29(1)(ii) of CCA Rules. The contention of learned counsel for the State is that the limitation of six months is only applicable for appellate authority and it cannot be made applicable when powers are exercised under rule 29(1)(ii). In the considered opinion of this Court, this aspect is already dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in Omprakash Gupta (supra). Para 17 of the judgment shows that the learned Government Advocate therein raised the same objection that the limitation is confined to the powers of appellate authority. The Division Bench in para 19 opined that the perusal of the entire rule clearly indicates that the provision relating to limitation of six months is in respect of the authorities referred to in rule 29(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCA Rules. Thus, as seen, the similar contention advanced by Smt. Patankar is rejected by the Division Bench. I am bound by the judgment of the Division Bench.

Considering the aforesaid, I am unable to hold that the powers under rule 29(1)(ii) can be exercised beyond six months. In the present case admittedly the order dated 30.9.2003 (Annexure P-2) is interfered with after six months by order, Annexure P-1, dated 27.9.2004. Thus, the said order cannot be permitted to stand.

The petitioners are similarly situated. The aforesaid legal position is not disputed by Smt. Pachauri, learned Deputy Government Advocate.

For the reasons stated in Om Prakash Gupta (supra) and Shri Chakrapani Mishra (supra), I am unable to upheld the order dated 30-09-2004, whereby power of review is exercised after six months. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 30-09-2004, Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 is set aside. The petition is allowed. No costs.