At, High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. DHARMADHIKARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
For the Appearing Parties: Purushottam Pandey, Alok Katare, Advocates.
S.A. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
2. This intra Court Appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchch Nyalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed, questioning the legality and validity of order dated 05/03/2019 passed by writ court in W.P. No. 3796/2018, whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed W.P. No. 3796/2018 by setting aside the impugned order dated 06/07/2005 passed by appellant No. 1 and in consequence of the same, the order of penalty dated 06/02/1997, whereby, two annual increments were withheld was restored. However, it is observed that the respondent be reinstated in service with continuity in service, but without back wages in view of delay and laches in approaching this Court.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the respondent was initially appointed on the post of Constable in the year 1983. While in service major penalty of compulsory retirement was inflicted against the respondent on 22/08/1996. Being aggrieved, respondent preferred an appeal before the Director, J.N.P.A. Sagar and the same was allowed and the order of punishment was set aside and vide order dated 06/02/1997, the respondent was punished withholding two annual increments for two years with reinstatement in service. The suo moto revisional power was exercised by the appellant No. 1 exercising the power under Police Regulation, 270 (4). The order dated 06/02/1997 withholding two annual increments was set aside and the order dated 28/10/2000 retiring the respondent compulsorily passed by DIG, JNPA was maintained. The respondent preferred W.P. No. 3796/2018, which was allowed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 05/03/2019. The impugned order dated 06/07/2005 (Annexure P/1) was set aside and in consequence of the same, the order of penalty dated 06/02/1997, whereby, two annual increments were withheld was restored and it was directed that the respondent be reinstated in service with continuity in service, but without back wages in view of delay and laches in approaching this Court.
4. Learned Government Advocate for the appellants/State contended that the writ petition was allowed on the ground of suo moto revisional power exercised by the appellants (herein) without jurisdiction in the light of judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Shrivastava vs. State of M.P., 2007 1 MPLJ 392 and in the present matter the Under Secretary has passed the impugned order, therefore, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable. Secondly, while quashing the order dated 06/07/2005, the learned Single Judge has restored the order dated 06/02/1997 without there being any prayer to that effect, hence, the impugned order dated 05/03/2019 deserves to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition and the directed the respondent to be reinstated in service. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, it can be seen that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as to the effect that setting aside of the order dated 06/07/2005 would result in restoration of order of penalty dated 06/02/1997 and withholding of two annual increments with reinstatement, as such, learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition with continuity i
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
n service, but without backwages. 7. In the light of above, no illegality or jurisdictional error appears to have been committed by learned Single Judge, therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned order dated 05/03/2019 passed in W.P. No. 3796/2018. 8. In view of above, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this writ appeal stands dismissed.