Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramesh Chandra Chouhan on 3 May, 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
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 3 rd OF MAY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 1032 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
MANTRALAYA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COLLECTOR MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JILA
PA N C H AYAT DIST. MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
( SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
APPELLANTS/STATE).
AND
RAMESH CHANDRA CHOUHAN S/O SHRI SHYAMLAL
CHOUHAN OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, EX GRAM
ROJGAR SAHAYAK GRAM PANCHAYAT BANJARI
VILLAGE BANJARI, TEHSIL GAROTH, DISTRICT
MANDSAUR MANDSAUR, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
The present writ appeal u/S 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Ucha Nyayalaya
(Khand Nayaypith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed assailing the
order dated 06.03.2024 passed in W.P. No. 31102/2023 whereby the learned
Single Judge has allowed the writ petition.
2. Brief facts giving rise to present intra Court appeal are that appellant
was appointed as Gram Rozgar Sahayak. On the basis of complaint from
complainant Harlal Chatra Banjari regarding respondent having demanded and
received illegal gratification for adding the name of daughter-in-laws of the
complainant for extending the benefit of 'Ladli Behna Yojana' floated by the
State Government, he was terminated from service. First appeal preferred by
the respondent was also dismissed. The respondent has approached this Court
by filing writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the
present intra Court appeal is filed.
3 . Learned counsel for the appellants/State submitted that respondent
was not performing the assigned duties under the MANREGA, Swaccha Bharat
Mission, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna and other such schemes floated by the
State Government from time to time. On receipt of complaint by one local
resident regarding demand of illegal gratification, reply was sought by the Chief
Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Mandsaur. On the basis of reply, documents
available on record and the phone call recording, an inquiry committee was
constituted to inquire into the matter at Janpad Level who has submitted a
detailed inquiry report to the CEO, Jila Panchayat leading to issuance of a
show cause notice to which reply was filed. It is further submitted that the
learned Single Judge overlooked the order passed by the Collector wherein it
has been categorically held that the proper inquiry was conducted by the
Collector and opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent and
thereafter the order of termination has been passed. Under such circumstances,
learned Single Judge has erred in fact and in law by passing the impugned order.
Hence, the same may be set aside.
4. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants/State and perused the
record.
5 . Admittedly, the order of termination of service of respondent was
passed without holding any inquiry and without affording any opportunity of
hearing thereby rendering the same to be stigmatic in nature. The learned Single
Judge finding the order to be stigmatic in nature, being passed not only without
holding any inquiry, but also behind the back of respondent has rightly allowed
the writ petition. Even if the respondent was a contractual employee, the
appellants/State without affording any opportunity of hearing and holding any
inquiry had passed the order of termination casting stigma/blemish on the future
career prospects of the respondent finding him guilty of serious misconduct.
The least this is required under the principle of natural justice is that a
reasonable opportunity should be afforded to the respondent before i.e. after
holding an inquiry where specific charges of misconduct are informed to the
delinquent employee followed by a reasonable opportunity of filing of reply
which has not been done in the case of respondent.
6 . The learned Single Judge relying upon the Division Bench
Judgements passed in the case of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi
Shiksha Mission, Bhopal & Others reported in 2001(3) MPLJ 616 and
Jitendra Vs. State of M.P. & Others reported in 2008(4) MPLJ 670 has
rightly held that the order of termination is stigmatic in nature as the same entails
serious consequences on future prospects of respondent and therefore, the
same ought to have been passed after holding an inquiry. This Court is further
supported in its view by the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Malkhan Singh Malviya Vs. State of M.P. reported in
ILR(2018) MP 660. Under such circumstances, learned Single Judge has
rightly allowed the writ petition directing the appellants/State to reinstate the
respondent in services with 50% backwages.
7. In view, of the above discussion as well as in the light of the
judgment passed by this coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Malkhan Singh Malviya (supra), we do not find any infirmity in the order
passed by learned Single Judge warranting interference by this Court.
8. Consequently, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
sh
