The court emphasized the importance of fair play in action and the need for a just and objective manner in conducting enquiries and arriving at decisions.

JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of the parties, heard finally.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against order dated 14.09.2015 (Annexure P/8) passed by respondent No.3 [G.T. Polytechnic College, Jaora, District Ratlam (MP)], whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated; and in an appeal preferred against the aforesaid order before respondent No.2 (Director, Technical Education, Bhopal), the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 21.06.2016 (Annexure P/12), which is also under challenge.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the G.T. Polytechnic College, Jaora, District Ratlam (MP) in the year 2008; and was regularized in the year 2011, as the College was declared as an Autonomous College by the State Government. On the basis of a complaint made in April, 2011 by certain students namely Harish Panwar s/o Prakash Chandra Panwar, Pradeep Tiwari s/o Madhusudan Tiwari and others, that the petitioner has illegally obtained certain money from them by threatening of serious consequences and also on the pretext that he would get them passed in the examination in First Division. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an enquiry ensued and on 10.03.2014, a charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner, although no Enquiry Officer was appointed in the matter. In the aforesaid charge sheet, an application was submitted by the petitioner on 31.05.2014 (Annexure P/2), denying the allegations levelled against him; and another application dated 31.05.2014 (Annexure P/3) was also filed for taking assistance of a retired Government Employee for the purpose of proper defence in the case, but the aforesaid application was not decided; and subsequently, the petitioner also submitted an objection before the State Government regarding the manner in which the Departmental Enquiry (DE) was being conducted; and vide order dated 11.05.2015 (Annexure P/4), the State Government directed the Disciplinary Authority, that the proceedings be conducted only in accordance with the law of the Madhya Pradesh Technical Education Polytechnic College (Teacher Cadre) Service Recruitment Rules, 2004 (herein after referred to as the Rules of 2004). However, the Enquiry Officer found the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved and on 25.05.20015 (Annexure P/6), a show cause notice was also served to the petitioner along with a copy of Enquiry Report, a reply to which was also filed by the petitioner on 27.05.2015 (Annexure P/7) and thereafter, impugned order dated 14.09.2015 (Annexure P/8) regarding removal of the petitioner from the services has been passed.

3. The appeal against the aforesaid order dated 14.09.2015 was preferred by the petitioner on 20.10.2015 under Rule 23 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (herein after referred to as the Rules of 1966), but as the same was kept pending, a Writ Petition No.3048/2016 was also filed by the petitioner before this Court which was disposed of vide its order dated 03.05.2016 (Annexure P/10), directing respondent No.2 (Director, Technical Education, Bhopal) to decide the petitioner's appeal expeditiously within a period of three months' time; and thus, following the aforesaid order, a Two Members Committee was constituted to decide the petitioner's case; and 17.03.2016 was fixed for personal hearing of the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted his written submissions, but the appeal also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority (Director, Technical Education, Bhopal) vide it's order dated 21.06.2016 (Annexure P/12) and thus, the order of removal of the petitioner has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority which is under challenge before this court.

4. Shri Santosh Baharihas vehemently argued before this Court; and it is submitted that the constitution of a Two Members Committee for the purpose of considering the statutory appeal in itself was contrary to