[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Fari Lal vs S.E.C.L. on 9 February, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11162
1 WP-6883-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6883 of 2017
FARI LAL
Versus
S.E.C.L. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Krishna Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anoop Nair - Senior Advocate with Ms. Disha Rohitas -
Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the impugned order
dated 07.11.2016 (Annexure P-11) by which the petitioner has been
dismissed from the services.
2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner herein was
confronted with the charge of impersonation. It was alleged that the
petitioner while claiming his name to be Fari Lal secured the employment
with the respondents. Later on, it was found by the respondents that the name
of the petitioner was Dashrath, therefore, a charge-sheet was issued and
ultimately after the charge-sheet, since the charges were found proved, the
petitioner was dismissed vide impugned order dated 07.11.2016 (Annexure
P/11) and an appeal against the dismissal was preferred which was also
dismissed vide order dated 14.03.2017 (Annexure P/14). It is contended by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11162
2 WP-6883-2017
the counsel that it is a case where the order of dismissal as well as the order
passed by the Appellate Authority are virtually non-speaking. The dismissal
order dated 17.11.2016 (Annexure P/11) does not contain the reasons. A
perusal of the order reflects that the same does not deal with the rival stand
of the present petitioner. It is further contended by the counsel that the
petitioner herein was known by the names of Fari Lal and Dashrath and both
the names were of the petitioner and this fact was later established by a
judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023 in RCA No.539/2019 delivered by
First Additional District Judge, Anuppur. It is further contended that as there
was a dispute regarding name of the present petitioner, the petitioner had
taken recourse to remedy of civil suit and ultimately, the suit was dismissed.
Thereafter, a first appeal was preferred which has been allowed and there is a
decree that the petitioners is known as Fari Lal as well as Dashrath. It is
contended that the factum of aforesaid two names of the present petitioner
was even admitted by the brother of the complainant. The brother of the
complainant namely Lalan Singh made a categorical statement that the
petitioner was known as Fari Lal as well as Dashrath and taking into
consideration the entire testimonies the Appellate Court came to a conclusion
that the suit deserves to be allowed and accordingly, decreed in favour of the
present petitioner. It is thus contended by the counsel that in view of the
subsequent events, the Appellate Authority be directed to reconsider the
appeal.
3. Per contra, Shri Anoop Nair submits that the petition is liable to be
dismissed. The petitioner, after the orders passed by the disciplinary authority
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11162
3 WP-6883-2017
as well as Appellate Authority, as an afterthought, approached the Civil
Court by filing a civil suit, which was initially dismissed and later on the
appeal was allowed. However, the subsequent decision by the Appellate
Court does not give any cause of action to the present petitioner as
undisputedly when the dispute regarding name of the present was raised, the
petitioner did not make any effort to seek declaration from the Court and
subsequently when he was confronted with the order of penalty of dismissal
and dismissal of the appeal arising out of the said order, the petitioner had
taken recourse to remedy of civil suit. It is therefore contended that the
petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended by the counsel that
the petitioner is guilty of suppression of fact inasmuch as W.P.
No.24593/2024 was previously filed by the petitioner while suppressing the
fact of filing of the present petition and the said petition was initially
disposed of vide order dated 29.08.2024. Later on, the order was recalled and
the said W.P. No.24593/2024 was dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2025
passed in R.P. No.1458/2024.
4. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
5. A perusal of the record reflects that it is a case where the order of
dismissal was assailed by the present petitioner by filing an appeal. The
Appellate Authority vide order dated 14.03.2017 dismissed the appeal by
passing the following order:
"izfr]
Jh Qjhyky vkRet jkejru
iwoZ Mªhyj] teuk 9@10 [knku]
tequk dksrek {ks=
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11162
4 WP-6883-2017
}kjk % {ks=h; dkfeZd izca/kd] tequk dksrek {ks=-
vkids }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] e/;izns'k] tcyiqj ds le{k nk;j fjV
fifV'ku Ø 20345@2016 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 09-01-2017 ds vuqikyu esa v/;
{k&lg&izca/k funs'kd] ,lbZlh,y fcykliqj dks lacksf/kr djrs gq, vihy fnukad
25-01-2017 izsf"kr dh gSA
vki dk lgh uke n'kjFk vkRet jkejru gksuk crkrs gq, f'kdk;r izkIr gqvk
FkkA rRi'pkr~ vkids fo:) izekf.kr LFkkbZ vkns'k dh /kkjk 26-1 ,oa 26-9 ds
varxZr vkjksi i= Ø 1294] fnukad 10-01-2016 tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] tks fuEu gSA
26-01 % fu;ksDrk ds O;kikj ;k lEifRr ds lkFk pksjh /kks[kk/kM+h ;k csbZekuhA
26-09% vius jkstxkj ds laca/k esa uke mez firk dk uke ;ksX;rk vkfn ds laca/k esa
xyr lwpuk nsukA
f'kdk;r dh xaHkhjrk dks ns[krs gq, foHkkxh; tkap dh xbZ ftlesa vki vius
lgdehZ ds lkFk mifLFkr gq,A tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk vkjksi i= dh fof/kor tkap ds
i'pkr~ izLrqr tkap izfrosnu esa vkjksi fl) ik;k x;kA
vkids }kjk f}rh; dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl dz- 367] fnukad 04-08-2016 tkjh fd;k
x;k ftldk Li"Vhdj.k fnukad 08-08-2016 dks izlrqr fd;k x;k] tks fd
larks"ktud ugh ik, tkus ds dkj.k mi{ks=h; izca/kd@vuq'kklukRed vf/kdkjh
Hknjk mi{ks= ds vkns'k dz- 703] fnukad 07-11-2016 ds }kjk vkidks rRdky izHkko
ls lsok ls c[kkZLr fd;k x;kA
vkidh vihy esa tkap dk;Zokgh esa fn, u, c;ku@nLrkostksa ds vfrfjDr
nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA foHkkxh; tkap ds nkSjku vkids uke esa fHkUurk
gksuk ik;k x;k gSA vkids leLr O;fDrxr vfHkys[kksa esa n'kjFk vafdr gS ckotwn
blds vki daiuh esa viuk uke Qjhyky fy[kok;k gSA blls Li"V gS fd vkius
QthZ :i ls nLrkost rS;kj dj daiuh esa jkstxkj izkIr fd, gSA vkids fo:)
yxk, x, vkjksi fl) gksus dh fLFkfr esa vki dks vuq'kklukRed vf/kdkjh ds i=
dz- ,lbZlh,y@cm{ks@16@703] fnukad 07-11-2016 ds }kjk tkjh n.M lsok ls
c[kkZLr ¼Dismissal from Service½ dh vihyh; vf/kdkjh }kjk ;Fkkor j[krs gq,
vihy fujkd`r fd;k x;k gSA
;g vihyh; vf/kdkjh ds vuqeksnu ls tkjh fd;k tkrk gSA"
6. A perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority
reflects that the Appellate Authority did not take into consideration the
grounds taken recourse to in the memorandum of appeal. The memorandum
of appeal has been brought on record as Annexure P/13 and a perusal of the
same reflects that the appeal was preferred on number of grounds and
unfortunately, none of the grounds which are mentioned in the memorandum
of appeal have been dealt with by the Appellate Authority. It is also relevant
to take note that subsequently there existed a decree in favour of the present
petitioner by which it has been declared that the petitioner carry both the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11162
5 WP-6883-2017
names i.e. Fari Lal as well as Dashrath and the said decree is dated
10.05.2023 delivered by the First Additional District Judge, Anuppur.
Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Appellate Authority is
required to reconsider the appeal taking into consideration the subsequent
events i.e. passing of decree by the First Additional District Judge, Anuppur.
7. Resultantly, the appellate order dated 14.03.2017 contained in
Annexure P/14 stands quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate
Authority to take decision on the appeal afresh.
8. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh memorandum of appeal
with the additional grounds of the judgment and decree passed by the First
Additional District Judge, Anuppur. The said additional grounds before the
Appellate Authority shall be submitted by the petitioner within 15 days from
today. The Appellate Authority then shall take a decision on the appeal
within a period of further 60 days while affording an opportunity of hearing
to all concerned.
9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
10. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vc
