Sandeep Singh Silawat vs Panchayat And Social Justice ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 13646 MP

                                                              1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                  BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                               ON THE 22 nd OF AUGUST, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 12039 of 2019

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SANDEEP SINGH SILAWAT S/O B.R. SILAWAT, AGED
                          ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O 48-A,
                          DWARIKAPURI, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                          (SHRI HARSHWARDHAN SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND
                                SOCIAL JUSTICE   DEPARTMENT   VALLABH
                                BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT, BARWANI (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    DISTRICT PANCHAYAT KHARGONE, THROUGH
                                CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DISTRICT BARWANI
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                          (SHRI MUKESH PARWAL, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                               ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 09.05.2018 (Annexure P-1) whereby the period from the date of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/26/2023 5:37:09 PM

termination till reinstatement has been treated as dies non.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the case are that, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II on 05.07.2013. That, on the basis of some false and fictitious complaint, the petitioner and the Principal of the School were arrested on 26.09.2013. On the ground of arrest, the respondent No. 3 terminated the services of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of arrest. The Special Session Judge Barwani, after conducting trial vide order dated 24.07.2014, acquitted the petitioner from all the charges. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the authorities seeking reinstatement in service and filed a representation, however, nothing was done. Therefore, the

petitioner was compelled to file W.P. No. 2661/2015. During pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No. 2 passed the order impugned dated 09.05.2015 reinstating the petitioner in service however, the period of termination has been declared as dies non on the principle of "No work no pay" . After various failed attempts to pursue the respondents to regularize the period the order impugned has been passed. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the period could not have been declared dies non without issuance of a show cause notice or conducting departmental enquiry. The order declaring the period as dies non is stigmatic and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. It is further stated that once the petitioner was terminated, the employer as employee relationship seized, therefore, this period could not have been declared as dies non.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar Varma Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2005 (1) MPHT 24 (NOC), in which it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/26/2023 5:37:09 PM

held that if a stigmatic order is being passed, holding a departmental enquiry is pre-supposed. Admittedly, no departmental enquiry was conducted in the present case. The order of dies non is stigmatic in nature, therefore, without conducting departmental enquiry, the orders cannot be allowed to stand and the same deserve to be quashed. In these grounds, he prays that the petition may be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner was terminated out of service and on the principles of "No work no pay" the period was declared as dies non, therefore, no interference is called for and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. It is a settled legal position that the order of dies non amounts to major penalty and an enquiry under Rule 14 of the C.C.A. Rules is to be held before passing the said order.

9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed the order impugned dated 09.05.2018 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside.The period treated to be dies non shall be treated as the period continued in service and the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits including promotion, seniority, arrears of salary as admissible under the rules. The aforesaid benefits be extended to

the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/26/2023 5:37:09 PM

JUDGE Vatan

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/26/2023 5:37:09 PM