Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohansingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 17 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2669 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MOHANSINGH S/O DALIYASINGH BHURIA, AGED
ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
(TERMINATED) R/O: GRAM MARGARUNDI
PANCHAYAT BOCHKA DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHUTOSH NIMGAONKAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY PANCHAYAT AND GRAMIN VIKAS
VIBHAG MANTRALAYA BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DISTRICT
PANCHAYAT, DIST. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PROJECT
O F F I C E R MAHATMA GANDHI RASHTRIYA
GRAMIN ROZGAR GUARANTEE SCHEME JANPAD
PANCHAYAT RAMA TEHSIL RAMA DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) INDORE DIVISION
INDORE MOTI BUNGLOW M.G. ROAD, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 19-02-2024
15:57:49
2
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure P/6)
passed by respondent No.5 the Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore,
whereby the appeal filed by him has been dismissed and the order dated
26.08.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Rojgar
Guarantee Parishad, Bhopal and the order dated 24.10.2020 passed by the
Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Rama have been affirmed. The
petitioner was appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak. It is stated that the
services of the petitioner have been terminated by respondent No.4 without
holding enquiry and by a stigmatic order. The petitioner preferred an appeal
before the Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Rojgar Guarantee Parishad
and the same has been dismissed by order dated 26.08.2022. Against the said
order, he preferred Second Appeal before the Commissioner, Indore which has
also been dismissed by the impugned order.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner
have been terminated without holding regular enquiry by a stigmatic order on the
ground that the petitioner has been negligent in discharge of duties and despite
repeated warnings, he did not obey the orders of senior officer and there was
no improvement in his performance. It is argued that since the order impugned
was stigmatic in nature, therefore, regular departmental inquiry ought to have
been held by the respondents. In support of his submission, he placed reliance
on the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench in WP No.23267/2019
(Omprakash Gurjar vs. Panchayat and Rural Development & Ors.), also
the order dated 12.09.2023 passed in WP No.19117/2022 (Hukumchand
Solanki vs. Panchayat and Rural Development & Ors.) and the order dated
19.07.2023 passed in WP No.14663/2022 (Arvind Malviya vs. State of MP
& Ors.). The relevant para of the judgment in the case of Arvind Malviya
(supra) reads as under:-
"3) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration the fact that the present petition is covered
by the order dated 25/4/2022 passed in WP No.23267/2019
(Omprakash Gurjar (supra)), the present petition is allowed.
The impugned order is hereby set aside. The respondents are
directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with 50%
backwages within a period of 2 months from the date of
communication of the order. However, liberty is granted to
the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh in
accordance with law, if so advised. The said order passed in
W.P. No.23267/2019 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the
present case."
3 . Counsel for the State submits that from the impugned order, it is
evident that a show cause notice was issued and after affording personal
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed and
therefore substantially the provisions of holding enquiry were complied with.
There was no violation of principle of natural justice.
4. The impugned orders do not indicate that the petitioner was afforded
opportunity of personal hearing and regular departmental enquiry before passing
the order of termination was conducted.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the fact that the present petition is covered by the order dated
25.4.2022 passed in WP No.23267/2019 (Omprakash Gurjar (supra)), the
present petition is allowed. The impugned order of termination is hereby set
aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with
50% backwages within a period of two months from the date of communication
of the order. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed against
the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. The said order
passed in W.P. No.23267/2019 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present
case.
6. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
