Back
2006(3) JLJ 218
A.K. Patnaik, C.J. and Deepak Verma, J.
State of M.P. and others v. R.L. Ogale and others
Writ Petition No. 483 of 1999: against the order of Administrative
Tribunal, Jabalpur, passed in OA No. 996 of 1992;
Decided on 6.10.2005.
The original respondent was working as Forestor in the Forest Department of Madhya Pradesh. He was promoted as Deputy Ranger in the year 1962 and, thereafter, as Forest Ranger in June 1975. A departmental proceeding was initiated and a charge-sheet was issued against the original respondent on 22.8.1984, in respect of some misconduct alleged to have been committed by him while he was posted as Forest Ranger-in-Charge of Departmental Operations of Coupe No. 11, 12 and 13 of Chandgarh. While the department proceedings were pending, the original respondent retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.1985. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report on 30.5.1988 and the disciplinary authority passed an order on 1.6.1991 directing inter alia for recovery of loss of Rs.4,10,071.84 alleged to have been caused by the original respondent to the Government.
Aggrieved by the said order dated 1.6.1991, the original respondent filed OA No. 996/1992 before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, and by order dated 22.5.1998 the said Tribunal held that the order was vitiated because the said order had not been passed by the competent authority nor had it been passed after consultation with the State Public Service Commission as provided in rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short "the Rules of 1976"). After recording the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal quashed the order dated 1.6.1991 passed by the disciplinary authority for recovery of Rs.4,10,071.84 from the original respondent. [Paras 1 & 2
Held : A reading of subd`rule (1) of rule 9 quoted above, shows that the power to pass an order for recovery of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government is reserved only to the Governor and no other authority. Subd`rule 2(a) of rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 however, provides that if departmental proceedings were instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, all such departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be proceedings under rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 after the final retirement of the Government servant and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced, in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. Hence, if the Conservator of Forest was the disciplinary authority in the case of the original respondent and before the retirement of the original respondent from service on 31.8.1985, departmental proceedings have been initiated and charge-sheet has been issued on 22.8.1984 by the Conservator of Forest, the said departmental proceedings are deemed to be proceedings under rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 even after retirement of the original respondent. The proviso of subd`rule 2(a) of rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, however, makes it amply clear that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by the authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall submit a report regarding its findings to the Governor. In the present case, therefore, the Conservator of Forest having initiated the departmental proceedings before the retirement of the original respondent, was only entitled to continue and complete the same and submit a report to the Governor regarding his findings in the departmental proceedings, but was not entitled to pass a final order for recovery of the loss of Rs.4,10,071.84 from the original respondent. [Para 8
In the present case, the original respondent retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.1985 and his pension including gratuity was withheld by the authorities under the aforesaid rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, and the original respondent was paid, however, a provisional pension in accordance with the said subd`rule (4) of rule 9 of the Rules of 1976. Any proceeding under rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 for recovery of loss from pension can be instituted only on or after the retirement of a Government servant and by virtue of subd`rule (2) of rule 9, the proceedings against the original respondent could be deemed to have been instituted on the date of his retirement, i.e., on 31.8.1985. Clause (b) of the third proviso of the said subd`rule (4) of rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 makes it amply clear that if the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of 2 years from the date of institution, the entire amount of pension so withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the period of 2 years. Thus, the pension that has been withheld in the case of the original respondent stood restored on the expiration of 2 years from the date of institution of the departmental proceedings and no further order on the completion of such 2 years could be passed by the Governor for recovery of the loss of Rs.4, 10,071.84 from the original respondent. [Para 10
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- M.P. Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1976 -- R.9(4), proviso III(b) -- respondents found entitled to the pension withheld -- cannot claim interest as they have not filed petition -- they can claim the same from appropriate forum. [Para 12
¼1½ flfoy lsok ¼isU‘ku½ fu;e] 1976 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-9¼1½] 9¼2½¼d½ ijarqd 9¼4½ rhljk ijarqd ¼[k½ && ljdkj dks gqbZ /kuh; gkfu dh olwyh ds fy, vkns‘k ikfjr djus dh ‘kfDr && jkT;iky esa fufgr gS && lsokfuo`fÙk ds iwoZ vkjaHk dh xbZ foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh && pkyw jgsxh && dk;Zokgh jkT;iky ds v/khuLFk izkf/kdkjh }kjk vkjaHk dh xbZ && mls jkT; dks fjiksVZ is‘k djuk gksrh gS && dk;Zokgh nks o"kZ ds Hkhrj iw.kZ ugha dh xbZ && jksdh xbZ isU‘ku dh laiw.kZ jde izR;kofrZr dh tk,xhA ewy izR;FkhZ e/; izns‘k ds ou foHkkx esa ouiky ds :i esa dk;Zjr FkkA mls lu~ 1962 esa mi&jsatj ds in ij vkSj rRi‘pkr~ twu 1975 esa ou jsatj ds in ij izksUur fd;k x;kA tc og pk¡nx<+ ds dwis Ø- 11] 12 ,oa 13 ds foHkkxh; dk;kZUo;u dk izHkkjh ou jsatj rSukr Fkk rc vfHkdfFkr :i ls mlds }kjk fd, x, fdlh vopkj ds laca/k esa ewy izR;FkhZ ds fo:) foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh vkjaHk dh xbZ rFkk 22-8-1984 dks vkjksii= tkjh fd;k x;kA tc foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh yafcr Fkh] ewy izR;FkhZ 31-8-1995 dks vf/kof‘kZrk dh vk;q izkIr gksus ij lsok ls fuo`Ùk gks x;kA rRi‘pkr~ tk¡p vf/kdkjh us 30-5-1988 dks viuh tk¡p fjiksVZ is‘k dh rFkk vuq‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh us vU; ckrksa ds lkFk vfHkdfFkr :i ls ewy izR;FkhZ }kjk ljdkj dks dkfjr :-4]10]071-84 dh gkfu dh olwyh dk funs‘k nsrs gq, 1-6-1991 dks vkns‘k ikfjr fd;kA mDr vkns‘k fnukad 1-6-1991 ls O;fFkr ewy izR;FkhZ us e/; izns‘k vuq‘kklfud izkf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds le{k ewy vkosnu Ø- 996@1992 Qkby fd;k rFkk vkns‘k fnukad 22-5-1998 }kjk mDr vf/kdj.k us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd vkns‘k nwf"kr gS D;ksafd mDr vkns‘k l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] vkSj u e-iz- flfoy lsok ¼isU‘ku½ fu;e] 1976 ¼la{ksi ds fy, ^^lu~ 1976 ds fu;e**½ ds fu;e 9 esa micaf/kr fd, x, vuqlkj jkT; yksd lsok vk;ksx ls ijke‘kZ ds i‘pkr~ ikfjr fd;k x;k FkkA iwoksZDr fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr djus ds mijkar vf/kdj.k us ewy izR;FkhZ ls :-4]10]071-84 dh olwyh ds fy, vuq‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k fnukad 1-6-1991 vfHk[kafMr dj fn;kA ¼iSjk 1 ,oa 2 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fu;e 9 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds ikB ls nf‘kZr gksrk gS fd ljdkj dks dkfjr fdlh Hkh /kuh; gkfu dh olwyh ds fy, vkns‘k ikfjr djus dh ‘kfDr dsoy jkT;iky ds fy, vkjf{kr gS] vU; fdlh Hkh izkf/kdkjh ds fy, ughaA rFkkfi] lu~ 1976 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 9 ds mifu;e 2¼d½ esa micaf/kr gS fd ;fn foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh rc lafLFkr dh xbZ Fkh tc ljdkjh lsod lsok esa Fkk] pkgs mldh lsokfuo`fÙk ds iwoZ ;k mlds iqufuZ;kstu ds nkSjku] rc ,slh leLr foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;k¡] ljdkjh lsod dh vafre lsokfuo`fÙk ds i‘pkr~] lu~ 1976 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 9 ds v/khu dk;Zokfg;k¡ le>h tk,¡xh rFkk mUgsa mlh izkf/kdkjh }kjk ftldks mUgsa vkjaHk fd;k Fkk] Bhd mlh izdkj pkyw j[kk vksj lekIr fd;k tk,xk] tSls fd ljdkjh lsod fujarj lsok esa jgk gksA vr% ;fn ewy izR;FkhZ ds ekeys esa vuq‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh ou laj{kd Fkk rFkk 31-8-1985 dks ewy izR;FkhZ dh lsokfuo`fÙk ds iwoz foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh vkjaHk dj nh xbZ Fkh vkSj ou laj{kd }kjk 22-8-1984 dks vkjksii= tkjh dj fn;k x;k Fkk rc ewy izR;FkhZ dh lsokfuo`fÙk ds i‘pkr~ Hkh mDr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh lu~ 1976 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 9 ds v/khu dk;Zokgh le>h tk,xhA rFkkfi] lu~ 1976 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 9 ds mifu;e 2¼d½ esa i;kZIr :i ls Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd tgk¡ foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh jkT;iky ds v/khuLFk izkf/kdkjh }kjk lafLFkr dh xbZ gS ogk¡ og izkf/kdkjh vius fu"d"kZ ds laca/k esa jkT;iky dks fjiksVZ is‘k djsxkA vr% izLrqr ekeys esa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ewy izR;FkhZ dh lsokfuo`fÙk ds iwoZ vkjaHk djus ds dkj.k ou laj{kd dsoy pkyw j[kus vkSj mls iw.kZ djus dk rFkk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa vius fu‘d‘kksZa ds laca/k esa jkT;iky dks fjiksVZ is‘k djus dk gdnkj Fkk] ewy izR;FkhZ ls :-4]10]071-84 dh gkfu dh olwyh ds fy, vafre vkns‘k ikfjr djus dk gdnkj ugha FkkA ¼iSjk 8 izLrqr ekeys esa ewy izR;FkhZ 31-8-1985 dks vf/kokf‘kZrk dh vk;q izkIr dj lsokfuo`Ùk gks x;k rFkk minku lfgr mldh isU‘ku izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk lu~ 1976 ds fu;eksa ds iwoksZDr fu;e 9 ds v/khu jksd yh xbZ] rFkkfi ewy izR;FkhZ dks lu~ 1976 ds fu;e 9 ds mDr mifu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlkj varfje isU‘ku lanÙk dh xbZA lu~ 1976 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 9 ds v/khu isU‘ku ls gkfu dh olwyh ds fy, dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh ljdkjh lsod dh lsokfuo``fÙk gksus ij ;k rRi‘pkr~ gh lafLFkr dh tk ldrh gS rFkk fu;e 9 ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds dkj.k ewy izR;FkhZ ds fo:) dk;Zokgh lsokfuo`fÙk ds fnukad vFkkZr~ 31-8-1985 dks lafLFkr dh xbZ le>h tk ldrh FkhA lu~ 1976 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 9 ds mDr mifu;e ¼4½ ds rhljs ijarqd ds [kaM ¼[k½ esa i;kZIr :i ls Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh lafLFkr fd, tkus ds fnukad ls 2 o"kZ dh vof/k ds Hkhrj iw.kZ ugha dh tkrh rc bl izdkj jksdh xbZ isU‘ku dh laiw.kZ jde 2 o"kZ dh vof/k ds volku ij izR;kofrZr gks tk,xhA vr%] ewy izR;FkhZ ds ekeys esa jksdh xbZ isU‘ku foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh lafLFkr fd, tkus ds fnukad ls 2 o"kZ dh vof/k ds volku ij izR;kofrZr gks xbZ rFkk ,sls 2 o"kZ iw.kZ gksus ij jkT;iky }kjk ewy izR;FkhZ ls :-4]10]071-84 dh gkfu dh olwyh ds fy, vfrfjDr vkns‘k ikfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk FkkA ¼iSjk 10 ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && e-iz- flfoy lsok ¼isU‘ku½ fu;e] 1976 && fu- 9¼4½ rhljk ijarqd ¼[k½ && izR;FkhZx.k jksdh xbZ isU‘ku ds gdnkj fu"df"kZr && C;kt dk nkok ugha dj ldrs D;ksafd mUgksaus ;kfpdk Qkby ugha dh && og mi;qDr U;k;ky; esa mldk nkok dj ldrs gSaA ¼iSjk 12
Verma, J. -
1. The original respondent was working as Forest in the Forest Department of Madhya Pradesh. He was promoted as Deputy Ranger in the year 1962 and, thereafter, as Forest Ranger in June 1975. A departmental proceeding was initiated and a charge-sheet was issued against the original respondent on 22.8.1984, in respect of some misconduct alleged to have been committed by him while he was posted as Forest Ranger-in-Charge of Departmental Operations of Coupe No. 11, 12 and 13 of Chandigarh. While the department proceedings were pending, the original respondent retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.1985. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report on 30.5.1988 and the disciplinary authority passed an order on 1.6.1991 directing inter alia for recovery of loss of Rs.4,10,071.84 alleged to have been caused by the original respondent to the Government.
2. Aggrieved by the said order dated 1.6.1991, the original respondent filed OA No. 996/1992 before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, and by order dated 22.5.1998 the said Tribunal held that the order was vitiated because the said order had not been passed by the competent authority nor had it been passed after consultation with the State Public Service Commission as provided in rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short "the Rules of 1976"). After recording the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal quashed the order dated 1.6.1991 passed by the disciplinary authority for recovery of Rs.4,10,071.84 from the original respondent.
3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 22.5.1998 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 996/1992, the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original respondent R.L. Ogale expired and his legal heirs, namely, his wife, 3 sons and one daughter have been substituted as respondents No.2 to 6.
5. Shri Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Tribunal has taken a view that under rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, the Governor is the competent authority to pass a final order for recovery of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if in any departmental proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence by which the loss has been caused to the Government. He submitted that this is a case in which departmental proceedings have been initiated against the original respondent when the original respondent was in service and the proviso to sub-rule (2)(a) of rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 would show that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an• authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall submit a report regarding its findings to the Governor. He argued that hence the initiation of departmental proceedings can be made by any authority subordinate to the Governor, but the final order on the report, submitted by the authority is to be passed by the Governor. He argued that in the present case, the Conservator of Forest was the disciplinary authority and he had initiated departmental proceedings against the original respondent and found the original respondent guilty of grave misconduct and negligence on account of which the Government had suffered loss of Rs.4,10,071.84. He submitted that if the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that it was only the Governor who could have passed the final order for recovery of the aforesaid loss from the original respondent, the Tribunal should not have quashed the entire proceedings, but should have only quashed the final order for recovery and left it open to the disciplinary authority to submit his report to the Governor for a final order to be passed.
6. Shri D.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the original respondent, who has been held to be guilty for grievous misconduct and negligence by the disciplinary authority in the depart
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
