Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar vs State Of M.P. on 5 May, 2022
Author: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
WP No. 2145 of 2021
(VIJAY KUMAR Vs STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS)
Dated : 05-05-2022
Mr Ajay Kumar Mimrot, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Mr Pradyumna Kibe, learned counsel for the respondents State.
1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has challenged the order dated 14-09-2020 (Annexure-P-2) whereby his
services 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.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer
made in the petition and prays for dismissal of the same.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record.
5. Rule 25(ka) of the said Rules reads as under:
Å" 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
6. 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
Signature Not Verified
SAN
respondents to follow the principles of natural justice. The petitioner's categorical
contentions/averments raised in the petition were not denied by filing parawise
Digitally signed by RASHMI
PRASHANT
Date: 2022.05.06 14:37:46 IST
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.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
rashmi
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RASHMI
PRASHANT
Date: 2022.05.06 14:37:46 IST
