Satish Kumar Mehra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6731 MP

                                     1
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT JABALPUR
                                 BEFORE
                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
                             ON THE 5th OF MAY, 2022

                     WRIT PETITION No. 21566 of 2017

         Between:-
         SATISH KUMAR MEHRA S/O SHRI BIHARI LAL
         MEHRA , AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
         GRAM ROJGAR SAHAYAK (SAMVIDA) GRAM
         PANCHAYAT   MAJHOLI    KHURD,   JANAPAD
         PANCHAYAT KARKELI DIST. UMARIA (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

                                                                   .....PETITIONER
         (BY SHRI AMIT KHATRI, LEARNED COUNSEL )

         AND

1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
         SECRETARY PANCHYAT AND SOCIAL WELFARE
         DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN
         BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.       COMMISSIONER   SHAHDOL DIVISION DISTT-
         SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.       COLLECTOR   EVAM    DISTRICT  PROGRAM
         COORDINATOR    MGNREGS     UMARIA DISTT-
         UMARIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.       CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PANCHAYAT
         UMARIA DISTT-UMARIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.       CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT
         KARKELI DISTT-UMARIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
         (BY SHRI PRASANJEET CHATTERJEE, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER)

      Th is petition coming on for admission, this day, the court passed the
following:
                                      ORDER

The petitioner was appointed on 17.02.2011 as Gram Rozgar Sahayak. On 23.01.2016 he was issued a show-cause notice on the ground of alleged fabrication of data relating to 22 labourers in the muster roll. The petitioner gave his reply to the said show cause notice on 30.01.2016. Thereafter enquiry was conducted vide order dated 27.02.2016 (Anneuxre P/6). Subsequently, vide letter dated 11.03.2016 sent by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Karkeli, District Umaria addressed to the Sarpanch / Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Majhauli Khurd,

Janpad Panchayat Karkeli, District Umaria, the Sarpanch was directed to carry out an enquiry against the petitioner. On 14.06.2016 the Sarpanch gave the report whereby there was a resolution in the Gram Sabha which recorded the fact that the mistake has been committed by the petitioner but a second chance was given to

him as 15 of the Panchas had resolved that the petitioner was otherwise doing a good job in the Gram Panchayat and as it was his first mistake, they have decided to forgive him for his mistake. They also resolved to retain him as a Gram Rozgar Sahayak. Four of the Panchas resolved against the petitioner but they were in minority. After all this, the impugned order dated 27.06.2016 was passed whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated.

Having gone through the said order, it appears that the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice and the resolution of the Gram Panchayat has not been taken into consideration at all before passing the same. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2019 by the Commissioner of the State Rozgar Guarantee Parishad. Having gone through the order passed by the appellate authority, it only lays down the charge against the petitioner. Nowhere it reflects that in the said order they had ever considered the reply given by the petitioner or the resolution of the Gram Sabha. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law. In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer and others; (1985)3SCC378. There the Supreme Court held that a reasoned report is essential more so where enquiry results in loss of livelihood or attaches a stigma. Further absence of reasons would show non-application of mind. In this case, the reasons have been given, however, the contentions of the petitioner as given in his reply to the show cause notice and the resolution of the Gram Sabha are conspicuous by their absence.

Under these circumstances, the petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 27.06.2016 is quashed and set aside, however, the respondents are given liberty to start fresh enquiry against the petitioner and pass a fresh order after

hearing the petitioner.

With the above, this petition is finally disposed of.

C.C. As per rules.

(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE Vikram

VIKRAM SINGH 2022.05.06 17:34:24 +05'30'