Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devkaran Patidar vs State Of M.P. Through Ministry Of ... on 2 February, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 5856 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
DEVKARAN PATIDAR S/O SHRI DEVDAS PATIDAR,
OCCUPATION: GRAM ROJGAR SAHAYAK(PRESENTLY
TERMINATED), R/O GRAM PANCHAYAT GOLEWADI,
JANPAD PANCHAYAT, TEHSIL SEGAON, DISTT-
KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI RANJEET SEN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PANCHAYAT AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH STATE EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE COUNCIL THROUGH
COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
D EVELOPM EN T, NARMADA BHAWAN, IIND
FLOOR, C-WING, 59, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR, KHARGONE, DISTRICT KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ZILA PANCHAYAT KHARGONE THROUGH CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PANCHAYAT OFFICE
KHARGONE, (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. JANPAD PANCHAYAT SEGAON THROUGH ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD SEGAON,
DIST KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. GRAM PANCHAYAT GOLEWADI, THROUGH
SAR PAN CH/SECR ETARY TEHSIL KHARGONE,
DIST KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 03-02-2024
02:52:03
2
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI KOUSTUBH PATHAK, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated
12.06.2017(Annexure-P/1) and 27.08.2016(Annexure-P/2), passed by the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 whereby the service of the petitioner has been
terminated from the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat
Golewadi.
2. That the petitioner was initially appointed as Gram Rozgar Sahayak in
Gram Panchayat, Golewadi, Janpad Panchayat Segaon, District Khargone. The
petitioner was regularly working on the post of the aforesaid post at Gram
Panchayat Golewadi. The Madhya Pradesh State Employment Guarantee
Council, which is an organization constituted under the Panchayat and Rural
Development Department of State Government of Madhya Pradesh had issued
the direction for appointment/ Discipline/Control of the Gram Rozgar Sahayak
in every Gram Panchayat in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The respondent no.4
issued the impugned termination order dated 27.08.2016 alleging certain
irregularities in the work of construction of road in the Gram Panchayat,
Golewadi and enquiry was also conducted by the respondent no.4 and as a
result of which, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner
has submitted his reply and denied the allegation levelled in the show cause and
also assigned the reasons in respect of the alleged misconduct.
3. That, as per M.P. State Employment Guarantee Council, which is an
organization constituted under the Panchayat and Rural Development
Department of State Government, has issued the direction for appointment /
discipline/ control of the Gram Rozgar Sahayak in every Gram Panchayat in the
State of M.P. and as per the Clause 15 of the aforesaid circular, the Program
Officer of Janpad Panchayat is the Administrative Controlling Authority and as
per Clause - 15.2 the Collector is empowered to terminate the services of the
Gram Rozgar Sahayak, and as per Clause 16 of the aforesaid rules, it is the
Gram Panchayat who can terminate the service of the Gram Rozgar Sahayak in
Special conditions, but in the present case all these legal fiction/situation have
not been followed by the respondent no.4. and the impugned terminated order
dated 27.08.2016, has been passed by the respondent no.4, which has been
wrongly uphold by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Being aggrieved with the said
order(s) the petitioner has filed the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders
are illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that the respondent no.4 without
considering the provisions of 15.01, 15.02 and 16 of the scheme according to
which the respondent no.4, is not empowered to terminate the service of the
petitioner, and the aforesaid impugned order Annexure-P/1 has been wrongly
uphold. He further submits that the respondents have acted in high handed
manner and without following the instructions/guidelines issued by the Higher
Authorities, issued the impugned termination order. Thus, the action of the
respondents is unjust and arbitrary. In the present case, neither any charge-sheet
has been issued against the petitioner nor any enquiry has been conducted
before passing of the impugned stigmatic order. In such circumstances, he
prays that the impugned orders be set aside. He further relied on the judgment
passed by this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev Gandhi
Shiksha Mission, Bhopal 2001 (3) MPLJ 616 and Prakash Chandra Kein
vs. State of M.P. and others 2010 (3) MPLJ 179.
5. The respondents have filed the reply and has submitted that a number
of complaints has been received against the petitioner. After receiving the
complaints a Committee was constituted for conducting an enquiry against the
petitioner and on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Committee a
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after giving opportunity to
the petitioner to file reply, the respondent has terminated the services. In such
circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is working on the post of
Gram Rojgar Sahayak and neither any charge-sheet has been issued to the
petitioner at any point of time nor any enquiry was conducted with the
participation of the petitioner. This Court has passed the judgment in the case
of Ramchandra vs. State of M.P. and others decided in W.P.
No.16572/2014 on 02/08/2017 and several other writ petitions on the subject
are under consideration before this Court.
8. In the light of the aforesaid as no charge-sheet was issued to the
petitioner and no enquiry has been conducted, the impugned orders
dated 12.06.2017(Annexure-P/1) and 27.08.2016(Annexure-P/2), passed by the
respondents deserves to be quashed and are accordingly, quashed. The
respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service; however a liberty
is granted to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, in case if
need so arises in future.
9. With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands disposed of. No
order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
pn
