Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jugal Kishore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 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 16 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3885 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
JUGAL KISHORE S/O RATAN SINGH BAGWAN, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT
PANCHAYAT SECRETARY / ROJGAR SAHAYAK R/O
MALI MOHALLA DAULATPUR TEHSIL SONKACHHA
DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JITENDRA VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER UJJAIN
DIVISION UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE PROGRAMME OFFICER/ CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER JILA PANCHAYAT DEWAS, DIST. DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD
PANCHAYAT SONKACHH DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. GRAM PANCHAYAT THROUGH SARPANCH GRAM
PANCHAYAT DAULATPUR, JANPAD PANCHAYAT
SONKACHH, DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 17-05-2024
13:46:17
2
ORDER
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2024 [Annexure
P/1] passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain affirming the order
dated 28.07.2020 [Annexure P/10] passed by the Jila Panchayat, Dewas which
in turn had affirmed the order dated 11.12.20219 [Annexure P/4] passed by the
Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchyat, Sonkach, District Dewas whereby
his services as a Gram Rojgar Sahayak had been terminated. The petitioner had
been appointed as a Gram Rojgar Sahayak by order dated 23.08.2012 and since
then he was continuously working on the said post. Thereafter the order of
termination was passed against him.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the services of
the petitioner have been terminated without holding regular enquiry by a
stigmatic order on the ground that there have been several irregularities on his
part in performing his duties and that he has deliberately with an intention to
benefit himself not discharged his duties as were required to done. He has been
negligent towards his work and has violated the orders of State Government
and his Superiors. It is argued that since the order impugned was stigmatic in
nature, therefore, regular Departmental Enquiry 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.), and 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:-
"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. Learned Counsel for the respondent/State submits that from the
impugned order, it is evident that a show cause notice was issued and after
affording 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
25.04.2022 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 allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
