Madhya Pradesh High Court

Maniram Marskole vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2023

Author: Sujoy Paul

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
ON THE 31 st OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 7032 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
MANIRAM MARSKOLE S/O SHIDU MARSKOLE, AGED
ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEE R/O PATH RAIYAT, TEHSIL BHAINSDEHI,
DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ADITYA SINGH RAJPUT - ADVOCATE )

AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
SECRETARY FOREST DEPTT. FOREST DEPTT.,
MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, DISTT. BETUL
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, WEST BETUL
(GEN ER AL), FOREST DIVISION BETUL DISTT.
BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. ANKITA KHARE - PANEL LAWYER )

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

With the consent, finally heard.

2. The petitioner 'a Sthai Karmi' is aggrieved by order dated 11/12/2018 (Annexure P/5) whereby petitioner is removed from service by invoking certain provisions of Madhya pradesh Daily Wages Employees Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU Signing time:

11/1/2023 3:10:34 PM

(conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred as "Rules").

3. In short, the case of the petitioner is that he was given the permanent status of Sthai Karmi by the department. As per department's stand mentioned in the impugned order dated 11/12/2018, certain show cause notices were issued to the petitioner alleging about his unauthorized absence. Since the petitioner did not submit any reply to the notices, it was further alleged that petitioner has disobeyed the directions of Superior Officer. For these two reasons / charges, petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner preferred a representation dated 08/01/2018 (Annexure P/6) and requested to give him adequate opportunity to defend himself.

4. Shri Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the Rule 10 & 11 of the Rules, submits that even assuming that any misconduct is committed by the petitioner, the respondents were required to prove it in a departmental enquiry. No departmental enquiry has been conducted. Non- submission of reply to the show cause notices cannot be treated to be admission of charges. In absence of any unconditional, unequivocal admission of guilt, the punishment cannot be imposed. He placed reliance on (2013) 1 MPLJ 144 Ghanshyam S/o Matadeen Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others.

5. Shri Rajput, Advocate also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.16572 of 2014 (Ramcharam vs. State of M.P. & others) wherein a punishment order was interfered with for not following the principles of natural justice. It is vehemently argued that even if the petitioner was a Sthai Karmi, principles of natural justice were indeed applicable and his services could not have been terminated without holding an enquiry.

6. Ms. Ankita Khare, learned Panel Lawyer supported the impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU Signing time:

11/1/2023 3:10:34 PM

order and urged that petitioner's application dated 05/12/2018 (Annexure P/4) itself shows that petitioner has admitted the guilt and therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned order. The Rules nowhere prescribed for conducting a departmental enquiry. The petitioner was in fact a daily rated employee.

7. Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated hereinabove.

8. Before dealing with rival contention, it is apposite to refer to the relevant portions of the said Rules, which reads as under :-

" 1 0 . Disciplinary action against the employee on misconducts :- (1) The following acts shall be treated as serious misconduct :-

                                    (a)     .............
                                    (b)     ............
                                    (c)     ...........
                                    (d) disobeying the orders of officers;
                                    (e)     ............
                                    (f)     ............
                                    (g)     ...........
                                    (h)     ............
                                    (i)    continuous absence for ten days without prior
                                    information;
                                    (j) .............

For any of the serious misconducts mentioned above, the employee shall be liable for punishment of termination from service.

11. Termination :- (1) The termination of the employee shall be made on the basis of the following grounds, namely :-

(a) ................

(b ) if the charges are proved as mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 10."

(Emphasis supplied)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU Signing time:

11/1/2023 3:10:34 PM

9. A bare perusal of Clause (b) of sub-rule 1 of Rule 11 aforesaid makes it crystal clear that termination of an employee can take place if the charges are proved as mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 10. It is noteworthy that the language employed in the provision aforesaid is charges are proved and not charges are alleged . In order to prove a charge, one has to conduct an enquriy. Mere non-furnishing reply to the show cause notices does not lead to any conclusion or presumption that allegations are found to be proved.

10. So far bone of contention of Ms. Ankita Khare, learned Panel Lawyer is concerned regarding admission of petitioner vide Annexure P/4, suffice it to say that in the entire punishment order, the respondents repeatedly stated that petitioner has not filed any reply to the show cause notices. After having denied the factum of submission of reply, it is no more open to the respondents to take assistance of that reply. Interestingly, Ms. Ankita Khare, learned Panel Lawyer submits that genuineness of document dated 05/12/2018 (Annexure P/4) is also doubtful because there is no acknowledgement / seal of the recipient.

11. A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405 opined that when validity of an order of the statutory authority is called in question, the validity of order needs to be examined on the basis of grounds mentioned therein and it cannot be supported by filing counter affidavit in the court. Thus, the reasons mentioned in the impugned order dated 11/12/2018 alone are relevant. The entire order shows that the petitioner has not filed reply to the show cause notices. For this reason, another charge against the petitioner was that he has disobeyed

Signature Not Verified the order of Superior Officer and not filed reply. Signed by: MANJU Signing time:

11/1/2023 3:10:34 PM

12. The principles of natural justice are applicable for the purpose of termination of a Sthai Karmi. This Court is unable to persuade itself on the line of argument advanced by learned Panel Lawyer that in the teeth of Rule 10 & 11 of the Rules, no departmental enquiry is required to be conducted. The principles of natural justice are ingrained and in the light of language used in both the aforesaid Rules, an effective opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner in the departmental enquiry. The similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Ramcharan (supra). Although case of Ramcharan was relating to a contractual employee/ Gram Rojgar Sahayak, this Court held that principles of natural justice are to be followed even in case of a contractual employee.

13. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Since impugned order is passed without following the aforesaid Rules and principles of natural justice, the said order is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the Rules.

14. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE manju

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU Signing time:

11/1/2023 3:10:34 PM