Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Nagar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 11 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 30303 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAHUL NAGAR S/O BABULAL NAGAR, AGED ABOUT 29
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT PANCHAYAT
SECRETARY/ ROJGAR SAHAYAK VILLAGE MENDKI
DHAKAD, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JITENDRA VERMA, LEARNED COUNSEL)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COMMISSIONER MADHYA PRADESH
ROJGAR GUARANTEE PARISHAD DIVISION
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER UJJAIN
DIVISION UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE PROGRAMME OFFICER/ CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER JILA PANCHAYAT DEWAS DIST. DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE COLLECTOR DEWAS, DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. GRAM PANCHAYAT MENDKI THROUGH
SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT MENDKI, JANPAD
PANCHAYAT DEWAS DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. BHARTI LAKKAD, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 11-12-2023
18:15:31
2
NO.1-5 ON ADVANCE NOTICE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.11.2023 passed by
respondent No.2 The Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Rojgar Guarantee
Parishad, Bhopal whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed
and the order passed by Divisional Commissioner has been affirmed. The
petitioner was appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak and he was also
notified as Assistant Panchayat Secretary. It is stated that the services of the
petitioner have been terminated by the respondent No.5 without holding enquiry
by a stigmatic order. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional
Commissioner, Ujjain and the same has also been dismissed by order dated
21.04.2022. Against the said order, he preferred Second Appeal before the
Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi Gram Rojgar Guarantee Yojna. By the
impugned order, the said appeal has also been dismissed.
2) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner
have been terminated without holding regular enquiry by a stigmatic order on the
ground that the petitioner has been negligent in discharge of duties and despite
repeated warnings, he did not obey the orders of senior officer and there was
no improvement in his performance. It is argued that since the order impugned
was stigmatic in nature, therefore, regular departmental inquiry ought to have
been held by the respondents. In support of his submission, he placed reliance
on the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench in WP No.23267/2019
(Omprakash Gurjar vs. Panchayat and Rural Development & Ors.), also
the order dated 12.09.2023 passed in WP No.19117/2022 (Hukumchand
Solanki vs. Panchayat and Rural Development & Ors.) and the order dated
19.07.2023 passed in WP No.14663/2022 (Arvind Malviya vs. State of MP
& Ors.). The relevant para of the judgment in the case of Arvind Malviya
(supra) reads as under:-
"3) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration the fact that the present petition is covered
by the order dated 25/4/2022 passed in WP No.23267/2019
(Omprakash Gurjar (supra)), the present petition is allowed.
The impugned order is hereby set aside. The respondents are
directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with 50%
backwages within a period of 2 months from the date of
communication of the order. However, liberty is granted to
the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh in
accordance with law, if so advised. The said order passed in
W.P. No.23267/2019 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the
present case."
4) Counsel for the State submits that from the impugned order, it is
evident that a show cause notice was issued and after affording personal
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed and
therefore substantially the provisions of holding enquiry were complied with.
There was no violation of principle of natural justice.
5) The impugned orders do not indicate that the petitioner was afforded
opportunity of personal hearing and regular departmental enquiry before passing
the order of termination was conducted.
6) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the fact that the present petition is covered by the order dated
25/4/2022 passed in WP No.23267/2019 (Omprakash Gurjar (supra)), the
present petition is allowed. The impugned order of termination is hereby set
aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with
50% backwages within a period of 2 months from the date of communication
of the order. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed against
the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. The said order
passed in W.P. No.23267/2019 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present
case.
7) With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
soumya
