Firoz Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5821 MP

                                                         1                               WP-5331-2021
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                         WP-5331-2021
                                    (FIROZ KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                      5
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 22-09-2021
                            Shri Sughosh Bhamore, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                            Shri Ritwik Parashar, learned Government Advocate for the State.
                            Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by order dated
                      17.01.2020 (Annexure-P/4) by which services of petitioner has been
                      terminated by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Khalwa, District-

                      Khandwa (MP).
                            Petitioner is working as Gram Rozgar Sahayak, In-charge Secretary of
                      Gram Panchayat, Meerpur. He was issued show cause notice on 10.01.2020
                      (Annexure-P/2). Petitioner filed reply to said show cause notice. Competent
                      authority after considering the reply and evidence available on record,
                      terminated the services of petitioner.
                            Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner
                      was not given any opportunity of hearing in preliminary enquiry conducted
                      against him. Petitioner was not confronted with material available against him

                      and order was passed by competent authority terminating his services.
                      Petitioner had no opportunity to place evidence and give his defence pursuant
                      to show cause notice dated 10.01.2020 as he had no knowledge of adverse
                      material to be used against him. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed
                      reliance on judgment passed by Division Bench on this Court in WA
                      No.1166/2017 {Malkhan Singh Malviya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh}.
                            On strength of said judgment, it was submitted by him that even if an
                      employee is not borne out of regular establishment is entitled to be afforded
                      reasonable opportunity of being heard before stigmatic order terminating his
                      services. Mere issuance of show cause notice and calling of reply would not
                      suffice without supply of adverse material used against employee and

Signature Not         affording him opportunity to adduce evidence in support of defence.
 SAN
Verified

Digitally signed by
SHABANA ANSARI
Date: 2021.09.25
15:06:35 IST
                                                           2                            WP-5331-2021
                             Learned counsel appearing for petitioner also placed reliance on order
                      dated 17.08.2020 passed in WP No.8947/2020 and order dated 14.10.2020
                      passed in WP No.14584/2020. In said judgment, reliance has been placed in
                      case of Malkhan Singh (supra) and impugned orders were quashed and
                      respondents were granted liberty to give opportunity of hearing to petitioner

and prove the misconduct by evidence. On basis of aforesaid submission, counsel for petitioner made a prayer for quashing of impugned order.

Learned Government Advocate for the State submitted that return has been filed on 21.09.2021 and direction was passed by this Court has been complied with and fine of Rs.10,000/- has been deposited before the Court.

In reply, it has been stated that a preliminary enquiry was conducted and, thereafter, show cause notice was issued to petitioner and he was given proper opportunity of hearing. Competent authority after considering the evidence available on record, has passed an order under challenge. Order passed by competent authority does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and same has been passed after following proper procedure prescribed in law.

Heard the counsel for petitioner as well as Government Advocate. Only question which is to be considered by this Court is "whether petitioner was given appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing order of termination or not?"

On going through the show cause notice contained in Annxure-P/2, it is found that details of preliminary enquiry was reproduced in show cause notice dated 10.01.2020. Adverse material which is to be used against petitioner was placed before him and he was confronted with the same. Petitioner filed reply to show cause notice and filed documents supporting his claim. Petitioner has also filed affidavit of the parties.

On perusal of impugned order which has been passed by competent authority, it is found that each allegation was separately and distinctly dealt

Signature Not with by competent authority while passing order of termination. Reasons have SAN Verified

Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI Date: 2021.09.25 15:06:35 IST 3 WP-5331-2021 also been given in the order. Reply filed by the petitioner was also considered and it was mentioned in the order that petitioner has not filed any documents nor satisfactory reply in relation to factual allegations made against him. Petitioner was also granted one month's honorarium as per administrative instruction. Petitioner was appointed on contract basis vide order dated 11.04.2021. As per Clause-15 and 19 of conditions of contract, if contract employee misconduct himself or is involved in criminal cases then appointing authority after giving opportunity of hearing can terminate the contract. In Clause-19, it has been mentioned that employer can terminate the services after giving one month's notice or paying one month's honorarium. Clause-22 of conditions of contract lays down that in case of dispute decision of MP

Rajya Rozgar Guarantee Parishad shall be final and binding.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that preliminary enquiry was conducted against petitioner by one Shri Devendra Tiwari, Block Development Coordinator. Petitioner was confronted with facts of preliminary enquiry in show cause notice dated 10.01.2020. Petitioner had filed a detailed reply along with documents before competent authority. No documents or evidence was adduced by petitioner to contradict factual issues. Petitioner after filing of reply did not choose to give any evidence. Petitioner is only a contractual employee and his services can be terminated by giving him one month's notice and after giving him proper opportunity of hearing. There is no substance in the argument of counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not confronted with adverse material and he was not given proper opportunity to rebut the said material. Petitioner had all the opportunity to place evidence before competent authority. His service has been terminated after giving him proper opportunity of hearing and there is substantial compliance of rights of natural justice of petitioner. In cases of appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak no elaborate departmental enquiry is to be conducted as is conducted in case of government employee under MP Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965. There has to be substantial compliance Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI Date: 2021.09.25 15:06:35 IST 4 WP-5331-2021 of opportunity of hearing and concerned person is to be informed about material which is available against him. Petitioner did not place any documents on record to show that he had filed documents which was not considered nor made any request to examine any witness or cross-examine the person who conducted preliminary enquiry in his defence.

In view of same, writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed.

                                                                                  (VISHAL DHAGAT)
                                                                                       JUDGE


                      shabana




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
SHABANA ANSARI
Date: 2021.09.25
15:06:35 IST