Jagdish Pal vs State and Others

Rajendra Menon, Judge

Challenging the suspension of the petitioner and the order Annexure-P6 dated 24.2.2012, rejecting his appeal on the ground of delay, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is working as Pump Attendant in Government Polytechnic College, Khirsadoh, Tehsil-Paradiya, District-Chhindwara. Vide order dated 2.5.2011 passed by the Collector Chhindwara, petitioner was placed under suspension, petitioner continued to be under suspension for a period of more than 80 days and after a period of 80 days, a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner, however, it is pointed out that the charge-sheet is not served in accordance with requirement of Rule 9(2-a) and (2-b) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and it was incomplete and the particulars and documents pertaining to the charge-sheet were not served on the petitioner. That apart the same is issued in violation to Rule-9(2-a) of the Rules 1966.

It is stated that in accordance with Rule 23 (3) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966, petitioner preferred an appeal before the disciplinary authority and challenged the suspension on various grounds and it is stated that the said appeal has been rejected on the ground of delay.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that rejection of the appeal on the ground of delay was not proper. Even if, there was some delay in filing the appeal challenging the order of suspension, the competent authority should take note of the fact that the suspension was continuing and one of the grievance of the petitioner was that the charge-sheet was issued contrary to the rules and the suspension is illegal, issuance of charge-sheet is improper. The appeal filed by the petitioner cannot be termed as time barred.

That apart, on the aforesaid ground, the appeal should not have been rejected. The appellate authority discharging the statutory duty should be more liberal in the matter of deciding the appeal and I am of the considered view that the appeal should have been decided on merit instead rejecting the same on the ground of delay.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The order impugned Annexure-P6 dated 24.2.2012 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner is quashed, the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of 30 days'' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules.