Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 405
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
P.K. Jaiswal and Vivek Rusia, JJ.
Rajendra Kumar Solanki v. M.P. Rural Road Development Authority
and another
Review Petition No.378 of 2015 (Indore) : against the order
dated 3.8.2015, passed by Hon'ble High Court in
Writ Appeal No.209 of 2015; Decided on 4.5.2016.
Ajay Bagadia and L.C. Patne for petitioner.
V.P. Khare for respondents.
Headnote:Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- R.20(2) -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- R.47 R.1 r/w S.114 -- disciplinary action by borrowing department -- petitioner on deputation up to 5.3.2013 in borrowing department -- inquiry initiated by same -- during pendency of action petitioner repatriated back to parent department -- borrowing department had authority to take diciplinary action till deliquent employee serving in said department -- but not after he had gone back to parent department -- no case made out for review -- no error apparent on face on record -- review petition dismissed.
Held : Therefore, in our considered opinion, since, inquiry had already been initiated, same would continue and after finalization of departmental enquiry and before taking any action, the borrowing authority under sub-rule (2) of rule 20 shall proceed to transmit the proceeding and the record of the departmental inquiry to the lending authorities as the case may. The power and disciplinary authority to take disciplinary action made available to the borrowing department/authority up till delinquent employee was serving in the said department but not after when he had gone back to the parent department. (1997)8 SCC 715, (2009)14 SCC 663 and (2009)10 SCC 464 followed. 2014(3) JLJ 379 distinguished.
flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ & fu-20¼2½ & flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-47 fu-1 lgifBr /kkjk 114 & m/kkj ysus okys foHkkx }kjk vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ & ;kph m/kkj ysus okys foHkkx esa 5-3-2013 rd izfrfu;qfDr ij & mlh }kjk tk¡p vkjaHk dh xbZ & dkjZokbZ yafcr jgus ds nkSjku ;kph dks ewy foHkkx dks okil laizR;kofrZr fd;k x;k & m/kkj ysus okyk foHkkx vipkjh deZpkjh }kjk dfFkr foHkkx esa lsok djus rd vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ djus dk izkf/kdkj j[krk gS & ijarq mlds ewy foHkkx dks okil pys tkus ds i'pkr~ ugha & iqufoZyksdu ds fy, ekeyk ugha curk & vfHkys[k ls dksbZ =qfV izdV ugha & iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % blfy,] gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa] p¡wfd tk¡p igys&gh vkjaHk dh tk pqdh gS tks tkjh jgsxh rFkk foHkkxh; tk¡p ds vafre gksus ds i'pkr~ rFkk dksbZ dkjZokbZ djus ds iwoZ m/kkj ysus okyk izkf/kdj.k fu;e 20 ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds v/khu dk;Zokfg;k¡ rFkk foHkkxh; tk¡p dk vfHkys[k m/kkj nsus okys izkf/kdj.k ;k tSlk ekeyk gks ikjsf"kr djus dh dk;Zokgh djsxkA m/kkj ysus okys foHkkx@izkf/kdj.k dks 'kfDr rFkk vuq'kklukRed izkf/kdkj vipkjh deZpkjh tc rd dfFkr foHkkx esa lsok dj jgk Fkk dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, miyC/k djk;k x;k ijarq tc og ewy foHkkx dks okil pyk x;k mlds i'pkr~ ughaA ¼1997½ 8 ,l lh lh 715] ¼2009½ 14 ,l lh lh 663 rFkk ¼2009½ 10 ,l lh lh 464 vuqlfjrA 2014 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 379 izHksfnrA
Rusia, J. -- 1. Present review petition under Order 47 rule 1 r/w section 114 of the CPC has been filed against the order dated 3.8.2015 passed in Writ Appeal No.209/2015 by which the writ appeal was dismissed by this Hon’ble High Court.
2. That, present petitioner was initially appointed under the M.P. State Electricity Board and thereafter, his services were absorbed in Narmada Hydro Electric Development Corporation Ltd. (in short NHDC) in the year 2005 and at the relevant time he was working as a Senior Manager (Civil). Petitioner was sent on deputation to the M.P. Rural Road Development Authority (in short MPRRDA) vide order dated 22.7.2008. The petitioner was posted at Barwani Unit II vide order dated 12.12.2008 and the period of deputation was continued time to time and various correspondence took place between NHDC and MPRRDA extending the period of deputation and finally the petitioner was relieved by the MPRRDA vide order dated 5.3.2013 to join NHDC. The order has been filed by the petitioner himself as Annexure P-13 in the writ petition.
3. While the petitioner was on deputation, vide order dated 26.4.2010, he was placed under suspension by the MPRRDA (Annexure P-7) in the writ petition and copy of the suspension order was sent to the General Manager (HR), NHDC, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal. Thereafter, vide order dated 7.2.2011, departmental enquiry was proposed by issuing a charge-sheet along with list of witnesses and documents and thereafter, vide order dated 15.1.2013, an inquiry officer was appointed by the MPRRDA.
4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.1.2013 and subsequent order dated 25.11.2014, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the authority of MPRRDA in initiating the departmental proceeding. He placed reliance upon rule 20 of the M.P. Civil Service Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 stating that borrowing department has no authority to place him under suspension and to initiate departmental proceedings.
5. After notice, return was filed by MPRRDA denying the allegation levelled by the petitioner and submitted that he had committed misconduct while on deputation and, therefore, the borrowing department has rightly suspended him and issued a charge-sheet.
6. Vide order dated 29.4.2015, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after considering the rule 20 of M.P. Civil Service Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.4.2015, the petitioner preferred Review Petition No.119/2015 and vide order dated 14.5.2015, the review petition was also dismissed as the scope of review the petition is very limited and no error on the face of record was found.
7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of Writ Petition No.437/2015, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.209/2015 and vide order dated 3.8.2015, the writ appeal was also dismissed and the order of Single Judge was upheld. Being dissatisfied with the order of dismissal of writ appeal, petitioner again approached this Court by filing present Review Petition No.378/2015 seeking review of the order dated 3.8.2015 passed in Writ Appeal No.209/2015 placing reliance upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court passed in the case of B.L. Satyarthi v. State of M.P. and another [2014(3) JLJ 379=2015(2) MPHT, 29 (DB)].
8. We heard Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.P. Khare, learned counsel for the respondent.
9. Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned counsel argued that petitioner has already joined NHDC vide office order No.628/2012/ NHDC/1/HR/1599 dated 12.10.2012 issued by Assistant Manager, NHDC and therefore, after 12.10.2012, MPRRDA has no authority to appoint an inquiry officer and proceed with the disciplinary proceeding in view of the law laid down in the case of B.L. Satyarthi (supra).
10. Shr V.P. Khare, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner was under MPRRDA upto 5.3.2013 and he had drawn salary upto the said period, t
