Ramgopal Mahaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 252 MP

                                                             1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                     BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                ON THE 4 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 30036 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAMGOPAL MAHAUR S/O PUNNERAM MAHUR, AGED
                           ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MAHASUKH KA PURA,
                           TEHSIL AMBAH, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI PARTH DIXIT - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
                                 SCHOOL EDUCATION MANTRALAY, VALLABH
                                 BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    COMMISSIONER,    PUBLIC   INSTRUCTIONS
                                 GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, DISTRICT
                                 M OR EN A, DIET CAMPUS, AB ROAD MORENA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    HEAD      MASTER, GOVERNMENT   PRIMARY
                                 SCHOOL, BHIKHE KA PURA, TAHSIL AMBAH
                                 DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI G.K. AGRAWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against inaction on the part of respondents in not taking any decision Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 05-01-2023 11:03:36 AM

so far as reinstatement of the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Teacher and was terminated from service due to registration of F.I.R. under Sections 294, 326, 323, 34 of IPC even after his acquittal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from the aforesaid charges.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner being Assistant Teacher was charged in the year 2006 under Sections 294, 326, 323, 34 of IPC and he was placed under suspension. Later on, the petitioner was awarded sentence of 3 years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.200/- vide judgment dated 29.12.2005 by JMFC, Ambah. Thereafter, vide judgment dated 21.12.2006 passed by Addtional Sessions Judge, Ambah Sub-Division Morena

in Criminal Appeal No.16/2006, his sentence was reduced to one year imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-. Against which, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Revision No.1010/2006 before this Court which came up for hearing on 27.11.2009 and vide judgment dated 27.11.2009, his sentence was reduced to the period of already undergone by him subject to further fine of Rs.2000/-. In consequence of conviction, the petitioner was terminated on 27.04.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was decided vide judgment dated 29.09.2021 acquitting the petitioner from the charges mentioned-above. Upon passing the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of acquitting the petitioner, he moved a representation (Annexure P/7) before respondent No.3 for his reinstatement on the services along with the copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is lying pending with the respondents and till date, the same has not been decided. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has made a limited prayer that if respondents are directed to consider and decide the representations (Annexures P/7 & P/8) submitted by the petitioner within the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 05-01-2023 11:03:36 AM

time bound frame, his grievance would be redressed.

On the other hand, innocuous prayer made by counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by learned Government Advocate.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Looking to the prayer so made by counsel for the petitioner and without commenting on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to decide the representations (Annexures P/7 & P/8) so submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn*

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 05-01-2023 11:03:36 AM