Madan Mohan Bhargava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 11131 MP

                                    1
 IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                        ON THE 18 th OF JULY, 2023
                    WRIT PETITION No. 16767 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
MADAN MOHAN BHARGAVA S/O SHRI RAMSWAROOP
BHARGAVA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
BAJRANGARH, DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K. KARTIKEY - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TRHOUGH ITS
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION
      DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    ZILA PANCHAYAT GUNA THROUGH ITS CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, DISTRICT GUNA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI S.S. KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)

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

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 04.07.2023; whereby, the representation submitted by the petitioner for reinstatement of his services after his acquittal in a criminal case registered under Section 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code by this Court vide judgment dated 29.03.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.197 of 2004, has been rejected. Further, the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 23.03.2020; whereby, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, his services were terminated only on the ground that he was convicted in a criminal offence by the Competent Court of criminal jurisdiction vide judgment dated 18.03.2004.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure P/2) by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected is per se illegal as no reasoning has been assigned in rejecting the same even after acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case by this

Court vide judgment dated 29.03.2023.

3. It was further argued that conviction of the petitioner was under Section 498-A of IPC and in that context, he was suspended on 17.03.2003 and abruptly on 23.03.2020, the services of the petitioner on this count were terminated.

4. It was further argued that no notice of any kind was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner; thus, the order dated 23.03.2020 was per se illegal. This aspect was not considered by the Authority deciding the representation of the petitioner as well as the aspect of acquittal of the petitioner. Thus, both the orders dated 23.03.2020 and 04.07.2023 (Annexures P/1 and P/2) being devoid of any substance deserve to be set aside.

5. Per contra, Shri S.S. Kushwah - Government Advocate - appearing on advance notice submits that the order of termination dated 23.03.2020 was undisputed in pursuance to the fact that at that time, there was an order of conviction against the petitioner by the Competent Court of Criminal jurisdiction in S.T. No.165 of 2003, dated 18.03.2004 and since after acquittal

of the petitioner by this Court in the aforesaid criminal case vide judgment dated 29.03.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.197 of 2004, there was no direction to reinstate the petitioner, consideration done by the Competent Authority cannot be faulted with and only thereafter the representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected. It was, thus, prayed that the petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From perusal of Annexure P/2 which is an order dated 04.07.2023; whereby, the representation submitted by the petitioner for his reinstatement in service has been rejected, appears to be a non-speaking and un-reasoned order. The only ground which has been assigned by the Authority in passing the said order is that since there is no direction for reinstatement of services of the petitioner, in the judgment of acquittal passed by this Court, the representation could not be considered and accordingly was dismissed, which to this Court appears to be wholly unreasonable and without application of mind.

8. Accordingly, the order dated 04.07.2023 is hereby set aside. Respondent No.3 - District Education Officer, District Guna is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh keeping in view the judgment dated 29.03.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.197 of 2004 whereby the petitioner has been acquitted for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

While considering the said judgment, the respondent No.3 is also directed to keep in mind that whether registration of a crime against the petitioner under Section 498-A of the IPC would per se entail the petitioner not competent to hold the post on which he was working. Let this exercise be done within a period of two months from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order.

9. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed off finally.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn* PAWAN Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1c dd90b4a49f265f02d9d593f,

KUMAR pseudonym=3190AA6E1809E2BA43FFBEC416CA0802839 9E44A, serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD4455ED49EA436EA 65E26164BEEED89153191C56E98CE21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2023.07.19 10:27:01 +05'30'