Rajesh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9177 MP

                                                           1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                                ON THE 20 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 3059 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAJESH YADAV S/O LATE BAIJU BAHAAR YADAV, AGED
                          ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL VILLAGE BUDNI
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI S.G. GOSWAMI - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY
                                WELFARE DEPTT. VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    THE    COMMISSIONER       HEALTH    (M.P.)
                                DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES SATPUDA
                                BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    THE CMHO CUM MALARIA ERADICATION
                                CONVENER SEHORE DISTRICT - SEHORE (M.P.)
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    THE DISTRICT MALARIA OFFICER SEHORE
                                DISTRICT - SEHORE (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI ANSHUMAN SWAMI - PANEL LAWYER)

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner herein was worked as Surveillance Field Worker on daily wages was confronted Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 6/22/2023 10:50:18 AM

with the show cause notice dated 05.11.2019 in which, the allegations of unauthorized absence were levelled against the petitioner. The said show cause notice was replied by the petitioner vide his reply dated 11.11.2019 (Annexure- P/6). The said reply of the petitioner was a detailed reply in which, the reasons behind his absence were explained by the petitioner. It was submitted by the petitioner with the support of medical certificate that during the alleged period of absence he was indisposed, yet the reply of the petitioner was not considered and the respondents passed impugned order dated 26.11.2019 (Annexure-P/7) by which, the services of the petitioner were terminated.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order

impugned has been passed without considering the petitioner's detailed reply and therefore, the same is nullity.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others [(2010) 9 SCC 496]. the reasons are soul of an order but unfortunately in the present case, the reasons are absolutely silent. There is no consideration of the petitioner's reply and accordingly, the order impugned deserves to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the stand so taken by the petitioner in the reply was considered by the respondents and it was found that the petitioner was guilty of unauthorized absence on number of occasions and accordingly, the Authority while considering the past conduct of the petitioner decided to pass the impugned order, which requires no interference inasmuch at the time of securing employment, an agreement was executed and the agreement contains a Clause which empowers the employer to dispense with the services of an employee.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 6/22/2023 10:50:18 AM

5. Heard the submissions on behalf of the parties.

6. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 05.11.2019 reflects that the petitioner was called upon to explain the reasons as regards the unauthorized absence. The said show cause notice was replied by the petitioner vide his reply dated 11.11.2019 and in the reply, the petitioner disclosed the reasons regarding the illness on account of which, he could not perform the duties. The said reply of the petitioner has not at all been dealt with by the respondents while passing the impugned order dated 26.11.2019. The entire order does not even refer to the reply of the petitioner and has been passed on an allegation of his unauthorized absence.

7. In the considered view of this Court, District Malaria Officer, Sehore was required to consider the contents of the reply submitted by the petitioner and without considering the same, the order impugned could not have been passed. Once the petitioner was confronted with a show cause notice it is incumbent upon the Authority to take into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and in absence of the consideration of the reply of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 is unsustainable.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 (Annexure-P/7) stands quashed. The matter is remitted back to the District

Malaria Officer, Sehore to pass an order afresh after considering the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice which is contained in Anneuxre-P/6 within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order by passing a well reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

9. It is made clear that this order shall not be construed as an order

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 6/22/2023 10:50:18 AM

of reinstatement inasmuch as, the contractual agreement of the petitioner against the post was for a period of 89 days extendable from time to time.

10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE mn

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 6/22/2023 10:50:18 AM