ORDER

Shrivastava, J. -- 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.6.2016 by which major punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed. He has also challenged the order dated 17.1.2019 whereby the appeal against the order of punishment has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts are that during the relevant time, the petitioner was working as “Aadesh Wahak” under the respondent No.2 - District & Sessions Judge, Dindori. A complaint was received against the petitioner on which initially in the preliminary inquiry, no material was found but again the complaint was received and the preliminary inquiry was conducted. Thereafter, the charge-sheet dated 26.11.2015 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had filed the reply to the charge-sheet and a regular departmental inquiry was conducted and in the inquiry report dated 25.5.2016, the charge was found to be proved and thereafter the petitioner was given the show-cause notice dated 14.6.2016 along with the inquiry report proposing the major penalty. The petitioner had submitted the reply and thereafter the impugned order of dismissal from the service has been passed which has been affirmed in appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the inquiry has not been conducted and no evidence has been recorded, therefore, in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Subhash Sharma and others v. Union of India reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 574, major punishment cannot be imposed. Referring to the report dated 3.4.2013, he has submitted that earlier a departmental inquiry was conducted in which the petitioner was exonerated, therefore, the second inquiry could not have been conducted. He has also submitted that since the petitioner had made a complaint against the Principal Judge of the Family Court on 20.1.2014 (Annexure-P/6), therefore, he has been victimized.

4. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the regular departmental inquiry has been conducted wherein the evidence has been recorded and on the basis of the inquiry report, the petitioner has been punished. He submits that the report dated 3.4.2013 which the petitioner is referring to, is a preliminary inquiry report. He has also submitted that the charge against the petitioner was serious in nature and on completion of inquiry, appropriate punishment has been imposed and that the inquiry was not on account of any complaint made by the petitioner.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is noticed that in the departmental inquiry, the charge against the petitioner was that he had accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- from one Girja Bai by visiting her house on the plea that he would get pending complaint dismissed. The charge-sheet dated 26.11.2015 was issued to the petitioner containing the said charge. Along with the charge-sheet, the petitioner was supplied with the list of witnesses and list of documents. The petitioner had filed the reply dated 15.12.2015. Thereafter, the regular departmental inquiry was conducted in which the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses. During the inquiry, the statement of Girja Bai was also recorded in support of the charge. The Inquiry Officer had submitted the report dated 25.5.2016 recording a finding that the charge against the petitioner about demanding and receiving the illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- was duly proved. Thereafter, the show-cause notice dated 14.6.2016 was issued to the petitioner along with the charge-sheet proposing the major penalty. The petitioner was also given opportunity to file the reply before passing the impugned order of dismissal from service. The above facts clearly reveal that the due procedure has been followed while passing the order of punishment.

6. So far as the report dated 3.4.2013 on which the petitioner is placin