Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prabhulal Malviya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23022
1 WP-22340-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 21st OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 22340 of 2023
PRABHULAL MALVIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shantanu Vakte, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Romil Verma, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated
26.04.2023, 14.12.2016 and 02.092.2015.
2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Nakal Navis (Section
Writer) by order dated 12.10.1995. On the basis of a complaint made by one
Ranjan Singh, a show cause notice was issued by the Collector and after the
reply, the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated
06.04.2014.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal
before the Upper Commissioner, Ujjain by which the order of termination
was quashed. After the quashment of the said order, the petitioner again
joined vide Annexure P/10. The services of the petitioner was continued by
order dated 27.06.2015. The petitioner continued to work from 02.10.1995
till 08.11.2016. Since his services were not being reguarlized, he filed WP
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23022
2 WP-22340-2023
NO.6893/2014, which was disposed of by directing the competent authority
to consider his case for regularization in the light of the order passed by the
Division Bench in the case of Rupchand Nirmakar WA No.1202/2010 and
also keeping in view the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
4. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Collector. The
said representation was rejected by Collector, Dewas on 2.09.2015. Though,
the similarly placed persons Nakal Navis Suresh Malviya and Harish Batham
were regularised by order vide Annexure P/16. The petitioner was given
another show cause notice on a complaint through CM Helpline. The
services of the petitioner were terminated. On the basis of the aforesaid
complaint, a criminal case was also registered in crime no.453/2016 for
commission of offence under section 420, 467, 201/34 of IPC, which was
registered as ST No.43/2007. The petitioner was acquitted in the said
criminal case. He relied on para 78 and 79 of the said judgment, whereby the
criminal court of law held that the prosecution has failed to prove the
allegation of manipulation, forgery, dissolution of evidence etc.
5. After the order passed by the criminal court of law, the petitioner
submitted an application Annexure P/25, which has been rejected by
Annexure P/26.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegation in the
termination order and the charges in the criminal case were identical and
therefore, once he was acquitted by the criminal court of law, he ought to
have been reinstated in service.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23022
3 WP-22340-2023
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/state argued that after the
acquittal, the petitioner filed an application Annexure P/25 for reappointment
on the post of Section Writer. The said application has been rejected by the
impugned order dated 26.04.2023 as the reappointment on the post of
Section Writer was not possible because the post of Section Writer itself has
been abolished.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the post of Section
Writer have been regularized and they are discharging their duties on the
post of LDC.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that
after the order of acquittal by the criminal court of law, the petitioner
submitted an application for reappointment on the post of Section Writer
instead of relief for reinstatement. The application for reappointment was
rejected vide Annexure P/26 dated 26.04.2023.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner may be granted liberty to file a fresh representation for
resintatement of service on the basis of the order of acquittal passed by
criminal court of law and the respondent be directed to consider the case of
the petitioner for resintatement.
11. Considering the aforesaid submission, the petitioner is granted
liberty to file a fresh representation for reinstatement on the post of Section
Writer or on the post on which the other Section Writers are allowed to
continue in the department on the basis of the order of acquittal within the
period of 30 days from today and if such representation is submitted, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23022
4 WP-22340-2023
competent authority i.e. Collector Dewas will consider the application for
reinstatement within the period of 60 days from the date of filing of the
representation.
12. It is needless to state that the said authority will examine the
grounds for termination as well as the allegation in the criminal case and will
also keep in mind that if the post of Section Writer are abolished and the
identically placed persons have been absorbed or allowed to continued in
different post like LDC, his case also be considered for reinstatement on that
post.
With the aforesaid, the present petition is party allowed and disposed
of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
