W.P. Nos. 1721, 2015, 5043 and 5322/2016. Case: Vijay Kumar Maheshwari Vs Public Works Department. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Case NumberW.P. Nos. 1721, 2015, 5043 and 5322/2016
CounselFor Appellant: Sunil Verma, Learned Counsel and For Respondents: P.R. Bhatnagar, Learned Counsel
JudgesS.C. Sharma, J.
IssueService Law
Judgement DateFebruary 06, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Judgment:

S.C. Sharma, J.

  1. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No. 1721/2016 are narrated hereunder.

  2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 24/11/2015 which has been passed after his retirement directing recovery of Rs. 81,784/- from the terminal dues. In fact, punishment of stoppage of 2 increments has been inflicted upon him and as he is a retired Government servant, the amount he has received by virtue of 2 increments has been calculated and a sum of Rs. 81,784/-is being recovered. In the impugned order recovery of Rs. 14.25 lacs has also been ordered against the petitioner.

  3. Facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was serving on the post of Superintending Engineer in the Public Works Department and while he was in service, a charge sheet was issued by the respondents. The charge sheet was undisputedly issued under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 on 19/2/2014. The petitioner did submit a reply to the amputation of misconduct and while the disciplinary proceedings were pending, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30/4/2015. The respondents have thereafter passed the impugned order inflicting punishment based upon the Charge Sheet. It is an undisputed fact that charge sheet was issued under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 on the alleged misconduct in the matter of construction of road and the petitioner did submit a reply denying the allegations levelled against him. The respondents after retirement of the petitioner taking into account reply of the petitioner which was in respect of Rule 14 Charge sheet, has inflicted a punishment of stoppage of 2 increments and have also inflicted recovery to the tune of Rs. 14.25 lacs. The contention of the petitioner is that after retirement punishment of stoppage of 2 increments cannot be imposed upon the petitioner as he is a retired Government servant and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. It has also been argued that once Rule 14 charge sheet has been issued, in all fairness, the respondents should have concluded Departmental Enquiry in the light of Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, respondents were competent to impose punishment as provided under Rule 9.

  4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - State has vehemently...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT