Madhya Pradesh High Court
Panchayat And Rural Development ... vs Nigar Sultan Khan on 15 November, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
Review Petition No.493/2020 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
Review Petition No.493/2020
Panchayat and Rural Development Department & Others v/s Nigar Sultan Khan
Indore, dated 15.11.2021
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Deputy Advocate General for
the review petitioners / State.
Heard.
By way of this review petition, the petitioner / Department
seeks review of the order of Division Bench passed in W.A.
No.1264/2019 dated 30.01.2020.
Learned Deputy Advocate General for the petitioners / State
submits that finding of Division Bench that in the termination order
of the respondent it is not mentioned as to what was the material
which was taken into consideration by the Enquiry Committee to
arrive at a conclusion that it is forged certificate. Learned Deputy
Advocate General has taken pains to refer to certain documents to
bolster the submission that the said finding is erroneous in nature and
such error amounts to 'error apparent on the face of the record'.
No other point is pressed by learned Deputy Advocate
General for the petitioners.
The order of learned Single Bench passed in W.P.
No.18168/2017 dated 30.04.2019 shows that after following various
judgments of this Court, the Single Bench opined that even for
terminating a contractual employee, the principles of natural justice
are to be followed scrupulously. During the course of hearing, Shri
Saxena fairly admitted that the respondent / employee was for the first
time confronted with the enquiry report when it was annexed with the
show cause notice. Thus, after conducting an enquiry behind the back
of delinquent employee, she was called upon to submit her
representation against the enquiry report. This procedure adopted by
the Department could not get the stamp of approval by the learned
Single Judge. The learned Single Judge opined that the procedure so
followed runs contrary to principles of natural justice, and therefore,
while setting aside the stigmatic order permitted the employer to
proceed against the respondent in accordance with law.
In our considered opinion, even if we agree with the
argument of Shri Saxena that there is some error in the order of
Division Bench dated 30.01.2020, it is not of much significance
because the ultimate effect of the order of the Division Bench was
dismissal of writ appeal which resulted into affirmation of order of
learned Single Judge.
As noticed, learned Single Judge has permitted the employer
to proceed against the respondent in accordance with law. Thus, we
find no reason to interfere on hyper technical reasons. We do not find
any merit in the review petition.
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Needless to
emphasize that liberty granted by the learned Single Judge to proceed
against the respondent shall remain intact.
(SUJOY PAUL) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH
Date: 2021.11.16 10:37:44 +05'30'
