Upon an employee's conviction, the disciplinary authority must either conduct a departmental inquiry or, if opting to waive the inquiry under service rules, must record in writing the specific reasons why such an inquiry is not reasonably practicable. Failure to do so renders termination unsustainable.

ORDER :

Jai Kumar Pillai, J.

In the instant petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner [who was working on the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Guradiyalalmuha, District-Mandsaur (MP)] has challenging the impugned order of termination dated 21.04.2022 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated from the post of Secretary of Gram Panchayat on the ground of his conviction by a criminal Court of law. The aforesaid order has been passed in exercise of powers under Rule 7 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (herein after referred to as the Rules of 1999).

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are as under: -

The petitioner initially appointed as Secretary in Gram Panchayat, Guradiyalalmuha, District-Mandsaur (MP) in the year 30.10.1995 and was performing his work very efficiently and diligently. All of a sudden, one fine day some unknown person has made a complaint against the petitioner regarding the irregularities and illegalities committed by him by giving benefit in the scheme called Panchparmeshwar Yojna. Thereafter, a case has been registered against the petitioner in which conviction order is passed on 12.04.2022 on account of which he was punished for a period of five years. Later on, the services of the petitioner was terminated by respondent No.2 vide order dated 21.04.2022 that too without hearing the petitioner and without holding any enquiry. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court by filing the writ petition which was disposed of by this court by giving the direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner, Ujjain. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed the appeal before the Commissioner, Ujjain and the same was dismissed vide order order dated 23.06.2025. Hence, prays for reinstatement of the petitioner on the said post.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of termination has been passed without holding an enquiry, as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents - State supported the impugned order and submitted that since the petitioner was convicted by a Court of law, and therefore, the Authority has passed the order of removal from services and the Authority was of the view that an enquiry is not reasonably practicable. A reliance has been made on Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the order does not record any satisfaction of the Authority that the Departmental Enquiry is not practicably possible. The order impugned simply states that the services of the petitioner are terminated on the ground of his conviction in the Court of law. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1999 confers powers to the Disciplinary Authority notwithstanding of the Rules 7, 8 and 9 of the Rules of 1999.

6. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1999 reads, as under: -

"10. Special procedure in certain cases. (1) Notwithstanding any thing contained in Rules 7, 8 and 9,-

(i) where a penalty is imposed on a Panchayat Servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules, the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case of pass such orders thereon a