Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs Madhya Bharat Khadi Sangh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8453 MP

                                1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                            BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                    ON THE 27th OF JUNE, 2022

                  WRIT PETITION NO.1887 OF 2008

      Between:-

      RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA S/O
      SHRI PREM NARAYAN SHARMA
      AGE-49 YEARS, OCCUPATION-
      UNEMPLOYED      R/O      C/O
      SHROTRIYA BHAWAN, M.S. ROAD
      GOPALPURA, MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH).
                                                ........PETITIONER

      (BY SHRI S.K. SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

      AND

1.   MADHYA BHARAT KHADI SANGH
     THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
     OFFICER KHADI AND VILLAGE
     INDUSTRIES COMMISSION 3-IRLA
     ROAD, VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI
     (MAHARASHTRA).

2.   STATE DIRECTOR KHADI AND
     VILLAGE            INDUSTRIES
     COMMISSION 3/4 GAUTAM NAGAR,
     BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH).

3.   CHAIRMAN, MADHYA BHARAT
     KHADI SANGH JIWAJI GANJ,
     LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA
                                            2

      PRADESH).

4.    SECRETARY, MADHYA BHARAT
      KHADI SANGH, JIWAJI GANJ,
      LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)
                                                            ........RESPONDENTS

        (SHRI P.C. CHANDIL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
        NO.1 & 2 AND MS. CHITRA BAIS - ADVOCATE FOR
        RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
                                       ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 15/2/2008, by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated.

2. A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 that the respondents no.1 and 2 have nothing to do with the present petition and they have been incorrectly impleaded. The respondents no.3 and 4 took a preliminary objection that the petitioner is a labourer and Madhya Bharat Khadi Sangh is an industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the petitioner had an alternative remedy of approaching the Labour Court. It is further submitted that even if any discrepancy is left in the departmental enquiry, still the department can lead evidence before the Labour Court and thus, this petition should not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal vs.

Administrative Officer, Madhya Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board and others reported in AIR 1986 SC 504 and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Vikram Sharma reported in 2012 (IV) MPJR 117.

3. In reply, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Manager in Madhya Bharat Khadi Sangh and he had also undergone training. The petitioner was primarily responsible for washing and colouring of clothes which are used for manufacturing the Indian flag. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 9/8/2007 on the following charges:-

vki jax'kkyk ds O;oLFkkid gS fdUrq vki Bhd ls dk;Z ugha dj jgs gSa vkids fo:} fuEu f'kdk;rsa gSA ¼1½ ;g fd fdykxsV lsUVj dh lwr jaxkbZ esa ,dlk jax ugha vk;k izkjaEHk dh jaxkbZ ,oa vUr dh yfPN;ksa ds jax esa vUrj vk jgk gS rFkk >.Ms esa dPps jaxksa dk mi;ksx fd;k x;kA ¼2½ >.M+ks ds jaxksa ls vkils dEiuh dk jax iz;ksx esa ykus dks v/;{k egksn; }kjk rhu ckj dgk x;k vkius dgk fd >.M+s dk jax dEifu;ka crkrh gh ugha gS tks vlR; gSA ¼3½ >.M+s NikbZ dk dk;Z v/;{k egksn; ds ckj&ckj dgus ds ckn Hkh dk;Z vR;Ur foyEc ls fd;k x;kA ¼4½ >.M+s ds pØ ds LØhu cukus ds lEcU/k esa v/; {k egksn; }kjk vkils Mcy LØhu cukus dks dgk x;k fdUrq vkius Mcy esa u cuokdj flaxy esa cuokbZ vkSj foyEc ls cuokbZA ¼5½ laLFkk us vknru lgh le; ij ugha vkrs gS mijksDr dj.kksa ls ekuuh; v/;{k th us vizlUurk O;Dr djrs gq,s vki ds fo:} tkap djkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gSA

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the said show-

cause notice was duly replied by the petitioner, however, without conducting any departmental enquiry and recording the evidence, his service was terminated.

5. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.

6. The petitioner had submitted his reply on 18/8/2007 to the show- cause notice dated 9/8/2007, which reads as under:-

Jheku ea=h th                                             fnukad 18&08&2007
e0 Hkk0 [kknh la?k
Xokfy;j e0iz0

fo"k; %& iz'kk- i= Øa0 [email protected]&08&2007 ds lanHkZ esaA egksn;] fuosnu gS fd eSa laLFkk esa xr 26 o"kkZsa] 4 Qjojh 1982 ls dk;Zjr gw¡] o"kZ 1980 esa foKku Lukrd mikf/k ds ckn o"kZ 1981 esa [kknh xzkeksa fo|ky; gqcyh ¼dukZVd½ ls 14 ekg dk ^^oL= jlk;u^^ VsDlVkbZy dseLs Vªh esa fMIyksek dj vki gsrq iw.kZ fu"Bk ,oa bZekunkjh ls drZO; ikyu dj jgk gw¡A ftlesa ls 1982&1990 rd laLFkk ds jax'kkyk foHkkx esa gh O;oLFkkid in ij dk;Zjr jgk gw¡A mijksDr o"kkasZ esa jax'kkyk foHkkx esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa dh la[;k 35 ls 40 rd jgh gS ,oa HkkSfrd rkSj ij dk;Z Hkh /kqykbZ jaxkbZ] NikbZ yxHkx orZeku esa 10 xqus Fkh tSlk fd fjdkMZ esa ns[kk tk ldrk gS ftldk fd eSa lQyrkiwoZd lapkyu dj pqdk gw¡A o"kZ 1991&92 ls 2005&06 rd jax'kkyk foHkkx ds dk;Z ds eq>s oafpr j[kk x;k bl ihfj;M esa dk;Z esa lky nj lky fxjkoV vkrh pyh xbZ ,oa dqN o"kkasZ rd mijksDr dk;Z fcYdqy Bi cUn gh dj fn;k x;k ftlls Jfedksa dh rks jksth&jksVh ls gkFk /kksuk gh iM+k e'khujh Hkh can jgus ls tax [kkdj dckM+s esa rCnhy gks xbZ ifj.kkeLo:i ok;yj IykUV tSlh eagxh ,oa egRoiw.kZ e'khu dckM+s ds Hkko cspuh iM+h blds vfrfjDr yk[kksa :I;s dk jax&jlk;u o"kkasZ rd mi;ksx u gksus ls feV~Vh izk; gks x;sA ekuuh; egksn; o"kZ 2006&07 esa mijksDRk dsUnz dh ftEesnkjh iu% esjs ikl vkbZ eSaus iqjkus jaxksa dk 75 izfr'kr mi;ksx dj xr o"kZ esa 2-30 yk[k dk jaxkbZ /kqykbZ ,oa NikbZ dk;Z fuLikfnr djk;kA laLFkk dh vkfFkZd fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq,s esjh ges'kk Hkkouk ;gh jgrh gS fd jax'kkyk xksnke esa ekStnw iqjkus jaxksa dk vf/kd ls vf/kd mi;ksx fd;k tkos eSa o'k vfr vko';d ;k ekStwn u gksus okyk jax jlk;u gh eaxk;k tkrk gS ;fn ,slk ugha fd;k tkrk rks yxHkx ,d yk[k :I;s ds jax jlk;u u;s vkSj eaxkus

iM+rsA vr% Jheku~ th dks voxr djkuk pkgrk gw¡ fd jax'kkyk foHkkx dk dk;Z iw.kZ:is.k rduhdh dk;Z gS ftlesa xr 26 o"kksZ esa ^^dsfeLVªh ,oa VsDlkVkbZy e'khujh^^ esa fdruk ifjorZu vk;k gS ;g vki Lor% gh vanktk yxk ldrs gSaA eSa ekStwnk lalk/kuksa ¼ijiajkxr½ ls vius iqjkus izf'k{k.k ds vk/kkj ij fdu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ftlesa fd /kqykbZ] jaxkbZ] dk ty Jksr V~;wcSy Hkh lw[kk iM+k gS ukyh ds xUns ikuh ls dk;Z djk jgk gw¡] eq>s esjh fu"Bk ij iz'u fpUg yxtkus ls vR;Ur nq%[k igqp a k gSA vr% Jheku~ th dks opuiwoZd dgrk gw¡ fd [kknh la?k esjh jksth&jksVh gS eSa bls uqdlku igqapkus dh dHkh lius esa Hkh ugha lksp ldrk] LoHkkor% gks ldrk gS fd fdlh dk;Z esa 'kr~ izfr'kr lQyrk u feyh gks ijUrq dHkh Hkh tkucw>dj ,slk ugha fd;k tk ldrk mlds fy;s Jek izkFkhZ gw¡aA Jheku~ ls vuqjks/k djrk gw¡a fd le; ij foyEc gks tkuk esjh ;k=k etcwjh Fkh ijUrq Hkfo"; esa l{ke ikyu dh f'kdk;r vkidks esjh ugha feysxh ;g esjh O;fDrxr ftEesnkjh gSA vr% bZ'oj ls izkFkZuk djrk gw¡ fd eSa Jheku~ ds funsZ'ku esa dk;Z djrk jgwa ,oa dk;Z dh c<+krs jh iqjkus le; ds led{k izkIr dj ldwa ekuuh; egksn; ls lg;ksx dh vis{kk ds lkFkA

vkidk jktsUnz 'kekZ O;oLFkkid jax'kkyk

7. From the show-cause notice, which was issued to the petitioner, it is clear that the charges which were levelled against the petitioner were that he should use the colour which is provided by the company, but every time he was insisting that the colour for colouring the clothes for manufacturing Indian flag are not manufactured by the company. Secondly, the petitioner was working at a very slow speed. Furthermore, he was directed to prepare the Ashok Chakra by using double screen, but he was always using single screen and there was a substantial delay in work and lastly, the petitioner was not in the habit of attending the office in time.

8. In reply to the show-cause notice, the petitioner had admitted that

he is washing and colouring the clothes, which are used for manufacturing Indian flag, with waste water flowing in the drain (Nali Ke Gande Pani Se Karya Kara Raha Hun). This reply submitted by the petitioner is shocking even to the conscience of this Court. How the clothes which are used for manufacturing Indian flag can be washed and coloured with the help of waste water flowing in a drain? This clearly shows gross negligence of the petitioner in discharge of his duties as well as his gross disrespect to the Indian flag. Further, the petitioner had also admitted that he was attending the office belatedly. A further reply was given by the petitioner on 24/8/2007 to the show-cause notice which was issued by the respondents on 22/8/2007 and in that reply, it was submitted by the petitioner that since he is residing in Morena and, therefore, he always gets late in attending the office. Thus, it is clear that the charges levelled against the petitioner were duly admitted by him. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the services of the petitioner were terminated by impugned order dated 15/2/2008, then the punishment imposed by the respondents cannot be said to be disproportionate to the allegations levelled against him.

9. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.06.30 16:49:54 +05'30'