Shiv Shankar Thakre vs M.P.S.E.B
2022 Latest Caselaw 1536 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT JABALPUR
                             BEFORE
          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                          CHIEF JUSTICE
                                &
   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
               ON THE 03rd OF FEBRUARY, 2022
                     WRIT APPEAL No.53 of 2022

         Between:-

    1.   SHIV SHANKAR THAKRE, AGE- 49
         YEARS, S/O SHRI SADA SHIV THAKRE,
         R/O GANSHORE, TEHSIL GANSHORE,
         DISTRICT SEONI (M.P)


                                                    .....APPELLANT

         (BY SHRI K.N.PETHIA, ADVOCATE)

                               AND

    1.   M.P.S.E.B THROUGH ITS       SECRETARY,
         SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAMPUR, JABALPUR
         (M.P.).
    2.   CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR,
         M.P.E.Z.V.V COMPANY     LTD.    SHAKTI
         BHAWAN RAMPUR, JABALPUR (M.P.).
    3.   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (TRANSMISSION
         AND DISTRIBUTION) M.P.E.Z.V.V COMPANY
         LAKHNADON, DISTRICT SEONI (M.P.).
    4.   EXECUTIVE     ENGINEER,      M.P.E.Z.V.V
         COMPANY, LAKHNADON, DISTRICT SEONI
         (M.P.).



                                                 ....RESPONDENTS

         (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
                                                                          W.A. No.53 of 2022

                                            -    2 -



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         (Heard through Video Conferencing)


       This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, passed the following:

                                           ORDER

This intra Court appeal takes exception to order dated 02.12.2021,

passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12749 of 2021,

whereby petition filed by appellant-petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner filed

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, being aggrieved by order

dated 07.03.2011 pronounced on 24.5.2011 by the Labour Court refusing to

interfere in order dated 30.03.2007 passed by respondents-authorities

dismissing the services of the appellant.

3. The appellant submits that he entered into services of erstwhile

M.P.E.B in the year 1991 as unskilled labourer and in terms of order dated

27.11.1995, he was given regular pay scale of Line Attendant. Accordingly,

he joined on the post of Line Attendant on 4.12.1995. Since then he was

working, however, vide order dated 24.7.1996, he was placed under

suspension and on 08.08.1996, a charge sheet was issued to him for alleged

misconduct of submitting forged mark sheet of 8th standard. The appellant

stated that there was no requirement of educational qualification of passing

8th class examination and, therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant W.A. No.53 of 2022

- 3 -

to submit any forged mark sheet. The charge sheet could not have been

issued beyond a period of one year from the date of commission of a

misconduct and the same is in violation of Rule 12(6) of the Madhya

Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this court

dated 21.01.2009 passed in the case of Divisional Engineer and others Vs.

Badri Prasad Baraiya1 to submit that in absence of any domestic inquiry,

the termination of the services of an employee was found to be illegal.

5. The case of the respondent before the writ court was that the appellant

was regularized vide order dated 27.11.1995 and he joined on 4.12.1995 and

pursuant to the condition of his appointment, he furnished his 8th standard

mark sheet which was found to be forged. Within a period of two years from

the date of his appointment on probation, decision to initiate departmental

inquiry was taken on 08.08.1996, therefore, there was no violation of

standing order. It was also stated that the appellant was given full

opportunity of hearing to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and

produce his defence. The Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of the

charge and hence a show cause notice was also given to the appellant

proposing penalty of his dismissal. The appellant submitted his reply on

27.08.1999 and, at the same time, he had also challenged the show cause

notice before the Labour Court. The Labour Court dismissed the challenge

W.P.No.13601 of 2008 (S) dated 21.01.2009.

W.A. No.53 of 2022

- 4 -

to the show cause notice which was also affirmed by the Industrial court and

finally the punishment was inflicted on 30.03.2007.

6. So far as the submission with regard to initiation of the departmental

inquiry within a period of one year is concerned, the same is found to be of

no help to the appellant for the reason that order of his appointment is dated

27.11.1995 and he joined his service on 04.12.1995 on probation of two

years and the charge sheet was served on him on 08.08.1996 i.e well within

a period of one year.

7. So far the requirement of submitting mark sheet of 8th class is

concerned, the learned Single Judge has recorded in paragraph No.8 of the

impugned order that the same was done in compliance of the order of his

appointment. The learned Single Judge considered the document D-20

issued by the Superintending Engineer requiring the educational

qualification of 8th class and other relevant documents.

8. In the instant case, a regular departmental inquiry was conducted after

giving full opportunity of hearing and the order of dismissal has been passed

by the disciplinary authority which has been affirmed by the Labour Court.

The learned Single Judge has also extensively considered the submissions

made by the appellant and did not find any substance. There is limited scope

of interference at this appellate stage when there are concurrent findings of

facts by the disciplinary authority, Labour Court and is affirmed by the W.A. No.53 of 2022

- 5 -

learned Single Judge. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order passed

by the learned Single Judge.

9. So far as the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in

the case of Badri Prasad1 , is concerned in that case also this court declined

to interfere into the findings given by the Labour court in favour of the

employee. Since, in the present case, the order of termination has not been

interfered by the Labour Court and is affirmed by the learned Single Judge,

hence in absence of any perversity, we do not find any reason to take

contrary view. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

          (RAVI MALIMATH)                                  (PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
            CHIEF JUSTICE                                              JUDGE

 MKL.

MANOJ     Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR LALWANI
          DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
          PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
          PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya



KUMAR
          Pradesh,

2.5.4.20=ad36bd0a68daf2238756985812b125 26281ad9d6703a41595304a2e8195ef028, pseudonym=3050F1D083ED3727ADE7D79B55 E8D2D9ECCF44E5,

LALWANI serialNumber=8C3E535065CECE45851C1EF8F 4C941F5F7BBEFDAF1B1EDF887C4DEDED3DA0 AA3, cn=MANOJ KUMAR LALWANI Date: 2022.02.07 10:32:20 +05'30'