[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhiya Lal Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1900
1 WP-17607-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 15 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 17607 of 2017
BHIYA LAL AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vineet Saxena - Advocate and Shri Gaurav Singh Bhadoria - Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief:-
"It is humbly prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and
the order impugned dated 03.10.2017 Annexure P/1 passed by
respondent No.3 Sub Divisional Officer, Lateri District Vidisha may
kindly be quashed and the respondents be directed to reinstate the
services of the petitioner on the post of Salesman with all consequential
benefits including back wages in the interest of justice.
Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit
in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted. Costs be
awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
appointed on the post of Salesman by respondent No.4 Society and thereafter
certain villagers made a complaints against the petitioner which was absolutely
forged and fabricated because on account of political rivalry certain false and
fabricated complaints have been made and without any full proof enquiry
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1900
2 WP-17607-2017
conducted by any Competent Authority, the services of the petitioner has been
terminated by SDO, Lateri, District Vidisha. It is further submitted that an
identical writ petition bearing W.P.No.31636/2024 (Vijay Pratap Namdeo Vs. The
State of M.P. and Ors.) has already been decided on 21.10.2024 by Principal Seat
and in view of the aforesaid order, the SDO/Shop Allotment Authority could not
have himself removed the employee, as the SDO does not have any authority to
terminate the services of the petitioner.
3. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer
made by learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order.
However, he has fairly submitted that as per the order of Principal Seat, the SDO
has no authority to terminate the services of the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No.4
Society and as per the aforesaid order, SDO (Revenue) is not having any authority
to terminate the service of the petitioner.
6. The Principal Seat at Jabalpur in the case of Vijay Pratap Namdeo
(supra), has held as under:-
"The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated
07.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the S.D.O Devsar, District
Singrauli, whereby the petitioner who is working as Salesmen in Fair
Price Shop, has been placed under suspension by the S.D.O.
Petitioner's contention is that S.D.O (Revenue) has no jurisdiction to
pass an order of suspension or termination from service and at best he
can issue a direction to the employer of the petitioner which is the
Society to suspend or terminate the petitioner from service, but he
himself cannot pass an order of termination or suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of
Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Pushpendra Singh Rajpoot
Vs. State of M.P decided on 14.12.2022 in W.P No. 28769 of 2022.
Per Contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1900
3 WP-17607-2017
However counsel for the State could not point out any distinguishing
feature in the present case from the case of Pushpendra Singh Rajpoot
(supra)
In case of Pushpendra Singh Rajpoot (supra) the Coordinate Bench
of this Court has passed following order:-
"The challenge mounted in this petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution is to the order dated 22.11.2022
(Annexure P/1) whereby the learned Sub-Divisional officer
has removed the petitioner/salesman of a shop.
2. The singular point raised by counsel for the petitioner is
founded upon Clause 16(7) of the MP. Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2015, which was interpreted by this
Court in WP. No.10944/15 (Bindravan Yadav. vs. State of
M-P.), WP. No.19591/15 (Dinendra Kumar Pandey vs.
Commissioner Rewa) and WP. No.26823/18 (Kailash
Pateria vs. State of MP). It is argued that as per Sub- clause
(7) of Clause 16 aforesaid, the power vested with the Shop
Allotting Authority to direct institute concerned to remove
the salesman whereas in the instant case the said authority
himself has removed the salesman, which is wholly
impermissible.
3. Prayer is opposed by Government Advocate appearing for
the State. He also placed reliance on the language employed
in Clause 16(7) aforesaid.
4. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
5. This is settled in law that if a statute prescribes a thing to
be done in the particular manner, it has to be done in the
same manner and other methods are forbidden. [See AIR
1959 SC 93 (Baru Ram vs. Prasanni), (2002) 1 SCC 633
(Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anjum MH.
Ghaswala)and judgment of this Court reported in 2011 4 CP
W.P. No. 16426/2023 (2) MPLJ 690 (Satyanjay Tripathi and
Another Vs. Banarsi Devi)].
6. I find substance in the argument that it was not open to
the Shop Allotting Authority himself to remove the
salesman. At best, he could have directed the institute to
remove the shopkeeper. For this reason alone, the order
dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure P/1) is set aside. As held in the
case of Kailash Pateria (supra), liberty is reserved to the
Competent Authority to take appropriate action against the
petitioner in accordance with law."
In the aforesaid case, the Coordinate Bench has considered the affect
of the Clause 16(7) of M.P Public Distribution System (Control) Order,
2015, which gives right to the Shop Allotting Authority to direct the
institution to remove the salesman of Fair Price Shop from the duties of
distribution of commodities of EDA system, if he is found guilty in the
matter of distribution of such commodities. It is further provided that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1900
4 WP-17607-2017
such order shall be binding on the institution.
The Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid case quoted above had held
that the shop allotment authority could not have himself removed the
employee, who is employed by the Society and not by the authority of
the State.
Consequently, in light of the judgment of this Coordinate Bench, the
impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 07.10.2024 is set aside and liberty
is reserved to the competent authority to take appropriate action against
the petitioner in accordance with law including Clause 16(7) of the M.P
Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015.
With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed off."
7. Consequently, in the light of order of Principal Seat at Jabalpur, the
impugned order dated 03.10.2017 (Annexure P/1) is set aside and liberty is
reserved to the competent authority to take appropriate action against the
petitioner in accordance with law including Clause 16(7) of the M.P. Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015.
8. With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed and disposed of.
9. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
