EEFCTtE 1 v. (1) The State of Maohya Predesh
Judgment
: HON'BLEMR. SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, J. WMT PETITION fS.) N0.1120 OF 2005 £'<-.:."^. Petitioner Hori Lal Sahu versus Resoondents The State of Madhya Pradesh and others Present : None appears for both the pardes. ORDER (Passed on 23R1 of Augusl, 2006) The petitioner was initially appointed as COntingency Paid Employee on the post of Driver in the year 1980. By order dated 6-3-1982 (Annexure A/l), the petitioner was appointed temporarily with a condition thattheservices of the petitioner could be terminated any time with one month's notice. The petitiQtier was suspended by order dated 8-7-1988 (Annexure A/2) for misusing official govemment vehicle (Jeep No.CPZ 4083) and for causin; damage to the govemment vehicle by accident, A departmental ^ enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the charges of misuse of govemment vehicle and further causing damage to the vehicle. The enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the delinqyent of Eicer - the petitioner had misused the goverament vehicle for his personal use and caused damage in that process to the govemment t£ vehicle. The disciplinary authority, who happened to be the enquiry officer also, by order dated 6-5-1989 (Annexure A/4), removed the petitioner ffom services.
The statutory appeal filed by the petitioner before the Conservator of Forest was also dismissed by order dated 20-9-i989 (Annexure A/6).
The petitibner preferred a revision before the Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration/Non-Gazetted) (Annexure A/7). The same was also dismissed on 10-4-1992 (Annexure A/8).
In the present petition, the petitioner has impugned order dated 6-5-1989 passed by the disciplinary autfiority (Anriexure A/4), order dated 20-9-1989 passed by the Conservator of Forest (Annexure A/6) and order dated 10-4-1992 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest (Admimsteation/Non-Gazetted) (Annexure A/8) on the ground that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to defend his case. The representations made by the petitioner were also not considered in their proper perspective.
On perosal of the pleadings and documents, evident that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer is based on sufiEcient evidence and there is no in-egularity, irrationality or procedural impropriety in the enquiry report.
It is well settled principle of law, as held in B.C. Qiatyrvedi vs. Union of India , State of U.P. and others vs. Ashok Kumar Sinssh and another, Umon of India vs. G.Ganayutham , Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and others4, V.Ramana vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. and others. State of Rajasthan and another vs. Mohd. Ayub Naz . Syndicate Bank and others vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in deeision makin| process not the decisioa. In the present case, there is no rationality, illegality or procedural irregularity, which require interference in the 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7-
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.