Ms (Dr) Manorama Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3320 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ms (Dr) Manorama Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak

                                1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  AT GWALIOR
                            BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                  ON THE 5th OF FEBRUARY, 2024

           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1997 of 2024

     BETWEEN:-

     MS (DR) MANORAMA SINGH D/O SHRI
     KULBHUSHAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION: SERVICE POSTED AS ASSISTANT
     PROFESSOR (SOCIOLOGY) AT GOVT COLLEGE
     VIJAYPUR  DISTRICT   SHEOPUR   R/O   B-5
     DWRIKAPURI NEAR PREM NAGAR FORT ROAD
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                  .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI D.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE)

     AND

1.   STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION
     DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF M.P. MANTRALAYA,
     VALLABH     BHAWAN    BHOPAL    (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
2.   THE COMMISSIONER, HIGHER EDUCATION
     DEPARTMENT GOVT OF M.P. SATPUDA BHAWAN,
     5TH FLOOR, A.B WING, BHOPAL (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
3.   THE ADDITIONAL REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
     HIGHER EDUCATION GWALIOR CHAMBAL
     REGION, CAMPUS OF KRG COLLEGE, GWALIOR
     (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.   THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. DEGREE COLLEGE
     KARHAL,    DISTRICT  SHEOPUR    (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
5.   DR. S.D. RATHORE, PRINCIPAL GOVT P.G.
     COLLEGE, SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6.   SHRI SUBHASH SHARMA, THE PRINCIPAL GOVT
     DEGREE    COLLEGE   VIJAYPUR    DISTRICT
     SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                                             2


       (BY SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
       GENERAL).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
                                       ORDER

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

"i) That, the impugned charge sheet Annexure -P/1 dated 11.07.2023 issued by the respondent no. 4 which is based on vague, bogus and unspecific allegation may kindly be quashed.

ii) That, the respondents be further commanded to consider her reply or to take a decision to drop the enquiry as the charges are absolutely vague, bogus and unspecific, which vitiates the whole enquiry.

iii) That, after concluding the preliminary enquiry the report submitted by the three members committee wherein the findings of the committee may kindly be quashed and declare the same as void ab-initio keeping in view the same has been done in flagrant violations of principles of natural justice.

iv) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in the favour of the petitioner."

2. The petitioner who is Assistant Professor (Sociology) at Govt.

Degree College, Vijaypur District Sheopur is aggrieved by

issuance of charge-sheet dated 11-07-2023 in which vague allegation of misbehaviour and using unparliamentary language with the college staff has been levelled. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that on flimsy pretext, preliminary enquiry was conducted and based on that report, impugned charge-sheet has been filed. Malafide is apparent on record when another complaint dated 20-12-2023 has been considered by the respondents and fresh preliminary enquiry has been directed to be preferred against the petitioner. Earlier also without giving any opportunity of hearing in preliminary enquiry, impugned show cause notice was issued. She is ready to prefer representation/reply but only anxiety is that she be given sufficient opportunity to elaborately discuss about the nature of allegation. Petitioner prayed for setting aside of impugned charge- sheet dated 11-07-2023.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the submissions, however fairly submits that if any representation is preferred by the petitioner then the same shall be taken care of by the respondents as per law. He also raised the point regarding maintainability of petition in the light of judgment of Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Baheti vs. High Court of M.P. and others, 2015 (3) MPHT 172.

4. Heard.

5. Considering the submissions although scope of interference in departmental enquiry appears to be very limited and the Apex

Court as well as this Court candidly discussed so. However, if the petitioner is having any grievance then she may reach before the concerned authority and concerned authority shall take into consideration all the submissions/documents placed by the petitioner so that if the case is of undue harassment then proper course correction shall be ensured, otherwise respondents shall proceed in accordance with law.

6. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

                                                           (ANAND PATHAK)
 Anil*                                                         JUDGE


ANIL


              DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
              PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH


KUMAR
              COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
              GWALIOR,

2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068 b51dae27e84c266b09d283f0799e67cd

CHAURAS c7df50f, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=EC534CBB3B245F05011 9F06F4A296DD83C765A1E2ACC6EC7D

IYA 8BD8CBCC9C2446E, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Date: 2024.02.06 10:49:35 +05'30'