Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J., Rajendra Menon and S.K. Seth, JJ.
Asif Mohd. Khan v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.7440 of 2013, Writ Appeals No.607 and 652 of 2015 (Jabalpur); Decided on 14.9.2015.
The principal decision pressed into service on behalf of the petitioners-appellants, is the case of Dr. R.K. Shastri (supra). [Para12
Held : It is well established position that the legal precedent must be analyzed in the context of the matter in issue therein and would be binding precedent for similar fact situation. (2003)6 SCC 697 followed.
[Para 12
In our opinion, the observations in paragraph 11 cannot be divorced from the factual matrix considered by the Division Bench. These observations are obviously in the context of facts of that case and would be binding precedent only in that regard.
(2) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- R.9(5)(a) and (b) -- powers of appropriate authority -- suspended employee -- composite order regarding revoking suspension and transferring at another place -- can be passed by competent authority -- no any prohibition under the Rules for passing such order -- view expressed in cases of Shri Vilas Ramesh Chand Tarhate and Dr. R.K. Shastri -- not conflict.
Questions of reference :
“(1)Whether it is necessary to post an employee on the same place after revocation of order of suspension from where he was suspended?
(2) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan v. Dr. R.K. Shastri, reported in 2005(4) MPHT 352 (DB), is correct or not?”
Held : There is no express provision in the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which prohibits issuance of a composite order by the authority otherwise competent to pass such order of revocation of suspension as well as to transfer the employee to some other place.
It is not possible to countenance the argument that the appropriate authority cannot exercise power to pass a composite order to revoke suspension and to simultaneously transfer the employee to another place in public interest.
In absence of any express provision in the Rules of 1966, prohibiting the appropriate authority, competent to suspend subordinate employee and including to revoke the suspension as also to transfer the concerned employee, it is not open to doubt the existence of power to pass a composite order of revoking suspension as also to simultaneously transfer the employee to another place in public interest.
[Para 27
That takes us to the question of law as to whether there is any conflict of opinion in the decisions of Co-ordinate Benches (Division Benches) of this Court in Dr. R.K. Shastri (supra), and Sri Vilas Ramesh Chand Tarhate (supra). In the case of Sri Vilas Ramesh Chand Tarhate (supra)...... The challenge to the transfer order was essentially on the ground of mala fide exercise of power by the authority and not because of public interest or administrative exigency. The observations in this decision, therefore, must be understood in the context of the said controversy.
As the decision in Sri Vilas Ramesh Chand Tarhate (supra), is not strictly on the question considered in Dr. R.K. Shastri (supra), the question of there being any conflict in the opinion on the same issue will not arise.
We accordingly disagree with the view expressed that there is conflict of opinion in the two decisions of the Division Bench, referred to above.
Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, we answer the two questions referred to us for consideration. We hold that the question as to whether it is necessary to post an employee at the same place after revocation of order of suspension from where he was suspended, may have to be answered on case to case basis in the context of existence or non-existence of the authority/power in the authority passing the order in question. If the authority is competent to revoke suspension as also to transfer the employee, it is open to such authority to pass a composite order, if the situation so warrants. Whether the transfer can stand the test of judicial scrutiny, will be an independent issue to be decided on the settled legal principles. There is nothing in the Rules of 1966 or the Madhya Pradesh Fundamental Rules which prohibits the competent authority from passing acomposite order of revocation of the suspension and transfer at a different place.
We further hold that the dictum of the Division Bench in the case of Dr. R.K. Shastri (supra), to the effect that the power of the appellate authority while deciding the challenge to the order of suspension is circumscribed by rule 27 of the Rules, is correct and needs no reconsideration. However, at the same time, we hold that the wide observations found in paragraph 11 of the same judgment,may have to be understood in the context of the question considered in the fact situation of that case. Writ Petition No.12219/2014; decided on 11.8.2014, Writ Petition No.8311/2012; decided on 7.12.2012 and AIR 1971 SC 823 referred to.
(3) Fundamental Rules (M.P.) -- R.9(13) -- expression 'lien' -- means of -- employee under suspension -- he would continue to hold his lien on the post on which he was "appointed substantively" -- until reinstated after revocation of suspension -- there can be no vested right to continue at a place where employee was posted at time of suspension. (1989)2 SCC 84 followed. [Paras 33 to 35
¼1½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && dc vkc)dj gS && ;g oSls&gh leku rF; dh vofLFkfr ds fy, vkc)dj gksxhA
;kphx.k@vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls lsok ds fo"k; esa eq[; fu.kZ; ftl ij cy fn;k gS] MkW- vkj-ds- 'kkL=h ¼iwoksZDr½] dk izdj.k gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g lqLFkkfir fLFkfr gS fd fof/kd iwoZ fu.kZ; dk ekeys esa fook|d fo"k; ds lanHkZ esa fo'ys"k.k fd;k tkuk pkfg, vkSj iwoZ fu.kZ; oSls&gh leku rF; dh vofLFkfr esa vkc)dj gksxkA ¼2003½6,l lh lh 697 vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 12
gekjh jk; esa] [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk in 11 esa fopkfjr rF;kRed eSfVªDl leqfDr;ksa ls O;Dr ugha gks ldrsA ;s leqfDr;k¡ izR;{kr% ml izdj.k ds rF;ksa ds lanHkZ esa gS vkSj dsoy ml laca/k esa iwoZ fu.kZ; vkc)dj gksxkA ¼iSjk 19
¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ &&
fu-9¼5½¼d½ rFkk ¼[k½ && leqfpr izkf/kdkjh dh 'kfDr;k¡ && fuyafcr deZpkjh && fuyacu izfrlagj.k djus vkSj vU; LFkku ij LFkkukarj.k djus ds laca/k esa la;qDr vkns'k && l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS &&,slk vkns'k ikfjr djus ds fy, fu;eksa esa dksbZ fu"ks/k ugha && Jh foykl jes'k pan rjgVs,oa MkW- vkj-ds- 'kkL=h ds izdj.kksa esa vfHkO;Dr dh xbZ jk; esa && izfrdwyrk ughaA
funsZ'k ds iz'u %
ß¼1½ D;k deZpkjh dks fuyacu vkns'k ds izfrlagj.k ds i'pkr~ mlh LFkku ij inLFk fd;k tkuk vko';d gS] tgk¡ ls mls fuyafcr fd;k x;k Fkk\
¼2½ D;k bl U;k;ky; dh [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk 2005¼4½,e ih,p Vh 352 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½ esa izdkf'kr dsanzh; fo|ky; laxBu fo- vkj-ds- 'kkL=h esa vfèkdfFkr fof/k lgh gS ;k ugha\Þ
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % e/; izns'k flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k vkSj vihy½ fu;e] 1966 esa,slk dksbZ vfHkO;Dr mica/k ugha gS] tks izkf/kdkjh dks la;qDr vkns'k tkjh djus ls fu"ksf/kr djrk gks] tks fuyacu ds izfrlagj.k djus ds lkFk&lkFk vU; LFkku ij LFkkukarj.k djus dk,slk vkns'k ikfjr djus ds fy, l{ke gSA
bl rdZ ls lger gksuk laHko ugha gS fd leqfpr izkf/kdkjh fuyacu izfrlagj.k ds lkFk&gh yksdfgr esa deZpkjh dk vU; LFkku ij LFkkukarj.k djus ds fy, la;qDr vkns'k ikfjr djus ds fy, 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx ugha dj ldrkA
1966 ds fu;eksa esa fdlh vfHkO;Dr mica/k ds vHkko esa] leqfpr izkf/kdkjh dks fu"ksf/kr djuk] tks v/khuLFk deZpkjh dk fuyacu djus esa lfEefyr fuyacu izfrlagj.k djus ds lkFk lacaf/kr deZpkjh dk LFkkukarj.k djus esa Hkh l{ke gS] fuyacu vkns'k dk izfrlagj.k djus ds lkFk&lkFk yksdfgr esa deZpkjh dk vU; LFkku ij LFkkukarj.k djus dk Hkh la;qDr vkns'k ikfjr djus dh 'kfDr dk vfLrRo gksus dk lansg fd;k tkuk [kqyk ugha gSA
ge fof/k ds bl iz'u ij vkrs gSa fd D;k MkW- vkj-ds 'kkL=h],oa Jh foykl jes'k pan rjgVs ¼iwoksZDr½] ds izdj.kksa esa bl U;k;ky; dh led{k U;k;ihBksa ¼[kaM U;k;ihBksa½ ds fu.kZ;ksa dh jk; esa dksbZ izfrdwyrk gSA ----- Jh foykl jes'k pan rjgVs ¼iwoksZDr½] ds izdj.k esa LFkkukarj.k vkns'k vko';d :i ls izkf/kdkjh }kjk vln~HkkoukiwoZd 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djus ds vk/kkj ij vk{ksfir fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj yksdfgr ;k iz'kklfud vR;ko';drk ds dkj.k ughaA bl fu.kZ; esa leqfDr] okn&fo"k; ds lanHkZ esa le>uk pkfg,A
tSlk fd Jh foykl jes'kk pan rjgVs ¼iwoksZDr½] esa fu.kZ; lgh vFkZ esa MkW- vkj-ds- 'kkL=h ¼iwoksZDr½] esa fopkj fd, x, iz'u ij ugha gS] mlh fook|d ij jk; esaa dksbZ izfrdwyrk mRiUu ugha gksxhA
rn~uqlkj vfHkO;Dr jk; fd mi;qZDr fufnZ"V nks [kaM U;k;ihB ds fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrdwyrk gS] ge lger ugha gSaA
ekeys ds lexz n`f"Vdks.k ls fopkj djus ij] vr%] gekjs fopkj ds fy, fufnZ"V nks iz'uksa dk ge mÙkj nsrs gSaA ge vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gSa fd iz'u D;k ;g vko';d gS fd deZpkjh dks fuyacu vkns'k ds izfrlagj.k ds i'pkr~ mlh LFkku ij inLFk fd;k tk, tgk¡ ls og fuyafcr fd;k x;k Fkk] iz'uxr vkns'k ikfjr djus okys izkf/kdkjh dks izkf/kdkj@'kfDr fo|eku ;k fo|eku u gksus ds lanHkZ esa izR;sd izdj.k ds vk/kkj ij mÙkj fn;k tkuk gksxkA ;fn izkf/kdkjh fuyacu dk izfrlagj.k djus vkSj deZpkjh dk LFkkukarj.k djus esa Hkh l{ke gS],sls izkf/kdkjh dks la;qDr vkns'k ikfjr djuk [kqyk gS] ;fn ifjfLFkfr,slk leFkZu djrh gSA D;k LFkkukarj.k U;kf;d laoh{kk dh ij[k ls fLFkj fd;k tk ldrk gS],d Lora= fook|d gksxk tks lqfuf'pr fof/kd fl)karksa ij fofuf'pr fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA 1966 ds fu;eksa ;k e/; izns'k ewy fu;eksa esa,slk dqN Hkh ugha gS tks l{ke izkf/kdkjh dks fuyacu vkns'k dk izfrlagj.k djus ls,oa fHkUu LFkku ij LFkkukarj.k djus ls fu"ksf/kr djrk gksA
ge vkxs vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gSa fd MkW- vkj-ds- 'kkL=h ¼iwoksZDr½] ds izdj.k esa fl)kar bl vk'k; dk gS fd vihy izkf/kdkjh }kjk tc Hkh vk{ksfir fuyacu vkns'k dk fofu'p;u fd;k tk jgk gks] rc og fu;e 27 }kjk lhfer gSA fQj Hkh] blh le;] ge vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gSa fd ml fu.kZ; ds in 11 esa O;kid leqfDr;k¡ ikrs gSa ftUgsa ml izdj.k ds rF; dh fLFkfr esa fopkfjr iz'u ds lanHkZ esa le>uk gksxkA fjV ;kfpdk Ø-12219@2014] fu.khZr fnukad 11-8-2014] fjV ;kfpdk Ø-8311@2012] fu.khZr fnukad 7-12-2012 rFkk, vkb vkj 1971,l lh 823 fufnZ"VA
¼3½ ewy fu;e ¼e-iz-½ && fu-9¼13½ && vfHkO;fDr ^/kkj.kkf/kdkj* && ls vfHkizsr && deZpkjh fuyack/khu && og viuk /kkj.kkf/kdkj ml ij fujarj /kkj.k djsxk ftl ij og ßekSfyd :i ls fu;qDrÞ fd;k x;k Fkk && tc rd fd fuyacu vkns'k ds izfrlagj.k ds i'pkr~ iqu%inLFk ugha fd;k tkrk && ml LFkku ij fujarj jgus dk fufgr vf/kdkj ugha gks ldrk] tgk¡ deZpkjh fuyacu ds le; FkkA ¼1989½2,l lh lh 84 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 33 ls 35
Khanwilkar, C.J. -- 1. These matters have been referred for consideration of question which is overlapping and, therefore, have been listed together for analogous hearing.
2. The leading writ petition (Writ Petition No.7440/2013)has been filed at the Principal Seat at Jabalpur. When the said writ petition was listed for admission, the learned Single Judge by a speaking order dated 26.4.2013 opined that the legal position expounded in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and others v. Dr. R.K. Shastri and another [2005(4) MPHT, 352 (DB)], will have no application to the fact situation of the case under consideration. Notwithstanding this opinion, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to Larger Bench for consideration. In such situation, it was open to the Full Bench to observe that the matter should proceed before the Single Judge on the basis of opinion already recorded and no question arises for consideration of the Full Bench.
3. However, we may still have to consider the matter because of the companion Writ Appeal No.607/2015 (renumbered originallyWrit Appeal No.196/2013 filed before the Bench at Gwalior), which has been placed for analogous hearing. This writ appeal has been filed by the employee whose Writ Petition No.1673/2013 filed before the Bench at Gwalior was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.4.2013 [2013(3) MPLJ 126], on the finding that the judgments of this Court in Dr. R.K. Shastri (supra), and another decision of the Division Bench in Union of India and others v. Sri Vilas Ramesh Chand Tarhate [ILR (2003) MP 491], were distinguishable on the facts of that case and cannot be applied as binding precedents. The learned Single Judge rejected the challenge to the order of the Commissioner, Higher Education, revoking the suspension of the writ petitioner and by the same order posting him to a place (Government College, Chanderi, District Ashok Nagar) other than the place where he was working when placed under suspension (as Lab. Technician in Government Excellence Science College, Gwalior). The learned Single Judge opined that the Commissioner, Higher Education had power to pass such a composite order and the analogy from the observations made in Dr. R.K. Shastri’s case cannot be applied,which observations were on the facts of that case. The writ petitioner questioned the said decision by filing the Writ Appeal No.196/2013, before the Bench at Gwalior. The Division Bench while considering the said appeal on admission, however, was of the opinion that there was conflict between the opinion expressed in the two Division Bench judgments referred to above [Dr. R.K. Shastri (supra), and Sri Vilas Ramesh Chand Tarhate (supra)]. Accordingly, the Division Bench vide order dated 4.4.2014, directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench and formulated two questions to be answered by the Larger Bench, namely :
“(1)Whether it is necessary to post an employee on the same place after revocation of order of suspension from where he was suspended?
(2) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan v. Dr. R.K. Shastri, reported in 2005(4) MPHT 352 (DB), is correct or not?”
4. In addition to the two cases, the third matter being Writ Appeal No.652/2015 (renumbered originallyWrit Appeal No.146/2015 filed before the Bench at Gwalior), arises from the decision of the learned Single Judge at Gwalior Bench dated 17.6.2015 in Writ Petition No.3487/2015(S). The learned Single Judge dismissed even this writ petition following the earlier decision in Dheer Singh Yadav v. State of M.P. and another (renumbered Writ Appeal No.607/2015 second matter). When writ appeal against this decision was notified for admission on 2.7.2015, the Division Bench noted the fact stated across the Bar that the question involved in the writ appeal was similar to one already referred to the Larger Bench by another Division Bench
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
