Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lokesh Sharma vs Panchayat And Rural Development ... on 14 May, 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 14 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 18455 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
LOKESH SHARMA S/O MADAN LAL SHARMA
OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,
R/O: VILLAGE PIPLYA BAKSU, TEHSIL SONKACHHA,
DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI JITENDRA VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE PROGRAMME OFFICER / CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, JILA PANCHAYAT, DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JANPAD
PANCHAYAT, SONKACHH (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. GRAM PANCHAYAT PIPLYA BAKSU THROUGH
SARPANCH, GRAM PANCHAYAT, PIPLIYA BAKSU,
JANPAD PANCHAYAT, SONKACHH, DISTRICT
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI A.S. PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the
Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain / respondent No.2 whereby the appeal
preferred by him against the order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the Madhya
Pradesh Rajya Rojgar Guarantee Parishad, Bhopal has been dismissed. By the
said order, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated
01.07.2020 passed by the Janpad Panchayat, Sonkachha, District Dewas had
been dismissed. 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 by a stigmatic order. The petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Jila Panchayat, Dewas which has been dismissed by order
dated 21.01.2021 which order has further been affirmed by the Commissioner,
Ujjain Division, Ujjain by order dated 26.04.2022 in the Second Appeal.
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 he had been negligent in discharge of duties and despite repeated
warnings, there had not been any improvement in his work. He had not ensured
that the construction work of the Janpad Panchayat is carried out. The reply to
the show cause filed by him was not satisfactory. As a result of the acts of
petitioner various projects of the Government have not yielded the desired
result. 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."
4 ) 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.
5) 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.
6) 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 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.
7) With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Anushree
