Sandeep Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2287 MP

                                                   W.P. No.19575/2020

                                1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
              ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                 WRIT PETITION No. 19575 of 2020
     Between:-
     SANDEEP    TRIPATHI    S/O   SHRI
     NARAYAN PRASAD TRIPATHI , AGED
     ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
     SAINIK NUMBER- 159, HAL SDERF
     SPECIAL TRAINER JILA RESERVE BAL
     SHAHDOL     CHIKWAN       COLONY,
     PURANI BASTI SHAHDOL DISTT.
     SHAHDOL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                         .....PETITIONER
     (SHRI G.S.BAGHEL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
     PETITIONER )
     AND
1.   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
     THRO.   THE     SECRETARY  HOME
     DEVELOPMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
     BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)



2.   DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HOME
     GUARD NAGRIK SURAKCHHA AVAM
     APADA PRAWANDHAN MP BHOPAL
     (MADHYA PRADESH)



3.   SENIOR STAFF OFFICER HOMEGUARD
     DISTT.BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)



4.   DISTRICT          COMMANDANT
     HOMEGUARD        DISTT.SHAHDOL
     (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                       .....RESPONDENTS
     (SHRI AMIT GARG, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
     RESPONDENT/STATE)
                                                                 W.P. No.19575/2020

                                         2



       This petition coming on for admission on this day, the court passed the

following:

                                      ORDER

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.9.2020, annexure P/2, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated. He has also challenged the order dated 13.11.2020, annexure P/5, whereby the appeal filed against the order of termination has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid stigmatic order of termination as well as the appellate order on the ground that the same have been passed without conducting any regular departmental enquiry nor affording any opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the aforesaid orders have been passed by invoking Rule 24(ka) of the Madhya Pradesh Home Guard Rules, 2016. The averments with regard to non-grant of opportunity have been made in the writ petition in the 'subject in brief' as well as in the body of the petition. He further argued that the order of termination is passed by the incompetent authority.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer made in the petition and prays for dismissal of the same.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

6. Rule 25(ka) of the said Rules reads as under:

" 25- nf.Mr djus dh izfdz;k&

¼d½ ftyk lsukuh& ftyk lsukuh ykal uk;d o Loa;lsoh gksexkMZ lSfud dh in Js.kh rd ds fy, vuq'kklughurk ds d`R; ds fy, vnZyh :e dh izfdz;k dks viuk,xk rFkk lqus tkus dk volj nsus ds i'pkr~ fu;e 24¼d½ esa mfYyf[kr dksbZ 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir dj ldsxkA "

A plain reading of this rule makes it clear that principles of natural justice are codified in the shape of said rules and; therefore, it is obligatory for the respondents to follow the principles of natural justice. The petitioner's categorical contentions/averments raised in the petition were not denied by W.P. No.19575/2020

filing parawise reply. Thus, in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Naseem Bano vs. State of U.P., 1993 Suppl 4 SCC 46, the averments of petition can be treated to be admitted. Thus, it can be safely concluded that principles of natural justice were not followed before removing the petitioner from service. Merely because statement of petitioner and other persons were recorded, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice were followed. The requirement of principles of natural justice is to apprise the petitioner regarding allegation against him with accuracy and precession. The respondents have not filed any show cause notice or charge-sheet to show that petitioner was put to notice, permitted to file his reply and thereafter action was taken. Thus, I am inclined to accept the contention of petitioner that impugned order is stigmatic and punitive in nature which has passed without following the principles of natural justice.

7. So far question of preferring appeal is concerned, the Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and others, 1998 (8) SCC 1, held that a writ can be entertained despite availability of alternative remedy if principles of natural justice are violated. This petition has been entertained on 22.12.2020 and at this stage, I am not inclined to relegate the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. Accordingly, the punishment order dated 14.9.2020 (Annexure P/2) as well as appellate order dated 13.11.2020 (annexure P/5) is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

8. Petition is allowed. No cost.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE HS

Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.02.21 17:32:17 +05'30'