Power Of Review Under MP Civil Services Rules Must Be Exercised Within Six Months, Delayed Review Of Retired Officer's Exoneration Invalid: MP HC

Background

Kameshwar Choubey retired as Sub Divisional Magistrate on July 31, 2020, after 38 years of service during which he received three promotions. During his service, an explosion occurred at a factory in Village Khairi, District Balaghat, leading to a show-cause notice being issued to him on June 29, 2017. A subsequent Magisterial inquiry, which submitted its report on June 8, 2017, found the factory owner liable for the incident. Based on the Additional District Magistrate's report, the District Magistrate, Balaghat, discharged Choubey from all charges on July 24, 2018. A separate departmental inquiry conducted by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, also exonerated him through an order dated September 27, 2019.

Despite his retirement, Choubey's retirement benefits were withheld by the authorities, citing issues with the charge-sheet process of another officer, Smt. Manjusha Vikrant Rai, who was involved in the same inquiry. After Choubey filed Writ Petition No. 5238 of 2022, the court directed the authorities to consider his representation. However, on October 11, 2022, the authorities initiated a review of his exoneration under Rule 29(1), and subsequently decided on to withhold 90% of his gratuity and pension.

Arguments

The petitioner's counsel primarily argued that the power of review under Rule 29(1) of the MP Civil Services Rules, 1966, cannot be exercised beyond six months. To support this contention, he cited State of M.P. and another v. Om Prakash Gupta (Writ Petition No. 781 of 2000) and S.D. Richharia v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 20492 of 2020), both of which established the six-month limitation period for exercising review powers. The respondents, on the other hand, asserted that no limitation period is prescribed for the State's exercise of review power. They contended that the impugned orders were therefore valid and required no interference from the court.

The Decision

Firstly, the court analyzed the S.D. Richharia case, which had examined Rule 29 in detail. The court noted that while the State had argued that the limitation period only applied to appealable orders, this interpretation was incorrect. The court emphasized that Rule 29(2) clearly encompasses both situations - where appeals are preferred and where they are not. Secondly, the court referenced State of M.P. and another v. Om Prakash Gupta (2001(2) M.P.L.J. 690), which established that the six-month limitation period applies to all authorities mentioned in Rule 29(1)(i), (ii), and (iii). The use of the word “or” in the rule indicated that any authority exercising review power must do so within six months.

Thirdly, the court emphasized that the law regarding the exercise of review power is well-settled - the maximum period for exercising review power under Rule 29 is six months, with no exceptions. In the present case, the review was initiated more than two years after the petitioner's retirement and approximately three years after his exoneration, far exceeding the prescribed limitation period. Finally, the court held that the impugned orders dated October 11, 2022, and December 5, 2022, were “apparently illegal” as they were issued well beyond the six-month limitation period. Consequently, the court set aside both orders and directed the respondents to release the petitioner's retirement dues within three months.

Date: 17 October 2024

Case Number: W.P. No.8170 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 281

Counsel for the Petitioner: Shri Amit Choubey

Counsel for the Respondents: Shri Girish Kekre

Click Here To Read/Download The order