Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Niranjan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 May, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 27 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 13180 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAM NIRANJAN SHARMA S/O SHRI ANGAD PRASAD
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
DEOGAWAN, TEHSIL MANPUR, DISTRICT UMARIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI CHITRANSH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL,
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COMMISSIONER, SHAHDOL DIVISION,
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE COLLECTOR, UM AR IA DISTRICT UMARIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA
PANCHAYAT UMARIA, D I S T R I C T UMARIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MANPUR
DISTRICT UMARIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JANPAD
PANCHAYA MANPUR, DISTRICT UMARIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SWAPNIL GANGULY - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 29-05-2024
18:13:49
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed
seeking the following reliefs:
(i) This Hon'ble Court may by its any Writ/Order or Direction may
pleased to declare the action of the Respondents as void illegal and opposed
to law.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ in the
nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dt. 09/05/2023
(Annexure-P/12) in the interests of justice.
(iii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ in the
nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to reinstate the
Petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.
(iv) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost
of this Petition.
PRAYER
Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to allow this Petition in the light of reliefs prayed for, by
directing the Respondents through issuance of appropriate writs, all in the
interest of equity, justice and good conscience.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE, THE
PETITIONER SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that by order dated 27.06.2005
petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat
Deogawan. Allegations were made against petitioner that he has wrongly
mentioned his date of birth as 07.06.1970 whereas his actual date of birth is
07.06.1966. Accordingly, a criminal case was registered for offence under
Sections 420, 467, 471 of IPC. By order dated 21.05.2009 the services of
petitioner were terminated on the aforesaid ground. The said order was
challenged by petitioner by filing W.P. No.6707/2009 which was disposed of
by order dated 22.07.2009 with an observation that since petitioner has already
approached the Collector, Umaria by bringing to his notice the illegalities,
therefore, Collector, Umaria was directed to decide the representation after
giving an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, Collector, Umaria by order
dated 26.10.2010 passed in Case No.1/A-89(A-23)/2009-10 dismissed the
representation. Thereafter, petitioner by judgment dated 11.05.2019 passed by
Third Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria in S.T. No.8/2010 has been acquitted
of the charge under Sections 468, 471 of IPC. Accordingly, petitioner made an
application on 16.10.2020 for his reinstatement. By order dated 24.03.2021 he
was informed that appeal is likely to be preferred against the judgment of
acquittal. However, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that complainant
has preferred Criminal Appeal No.11192/2023. It is submitted that by order
dated 28.12.2021 representation of petitioner was rejected. The appeal filed by
petitioner has also been dismissed by order dated 09.05.2023 passed by
Commissioner, Shahdol Divison, Shahdol in Case No.63/Appeal/2022-23. It is
submitted by counsel for petitioner that since the services of petitioner were
terminated on the ground of registration of criminal offence and since he has
been acquitted, therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
4. This Court has gone through the order dated 26.02.2010 passed by
Collector, Umaria in Case No.1/A-89(A-23)/2009-10. From this order, it is clear
that services of petitioner were terminated after considering the merits of the
case and incidentally the factum of registration of FIR was also taken note of.
However, services of petitioner were not terminated on a single ground that a
criminal offence has been registered. Since order dated 26.02.2010 was never
challenged by petitioner, therefore, merely upon his acquittal petitioner cannot
seek his reinstatement.
5. It is well established principle of law that degree of proof in criminal
case and departmental proceedings is completely different. The allegations are
required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case but
departmental proceedings are always decided on preponderance of
probabilities. Merely because petitioner has been acquitted in a criminal case, it
would not make him eligible for reinstatement specifically when his termination
was after considering the allegations levelled against petitioner and was not
simplicitor on the ground that FIR has been registered.
6. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference.
7. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
vc
