ORDER

Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari The present writ appeal u/S 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Ucha Nyayalaya (Khand Nayaypith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed assailing the order dated 31.08.2023 passed in W.P. No. 20630/2023 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

2. Brief facts giving rise to present intra Court appeal are that appellant was appointed as Gram Rozgar Sahayaka at Gram Panchayat Nawalpura, Janpad Panchayat, Tehsil Sendhwa, District Barwani under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme vide order dated 09.12.2010.

The appellant joined the duties on 10.12.2010 and, thereafter, continued to work on the aforesaid post. A complaint before the Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue), Sendhwa was submitted by the residents of Gram Panchayat wherein it was stated that with the help of husband of Sarpanch, the appellant committed irregularities in geo-tagging the names of beneficiaries of P.M. Aawas Yojna. On receiving the complaint, the SDO conducted the one-sided preliminary enquiry in which it was revealed that 15 tagged beneficiaries under the PM Aawas Yojna were not given the benefits and it was given to certain other individuals who were not entitled for the same. The respondent No.3 directed the respondent No.4 to register the FIR against the appellant and other accused persons. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant to which he stated that he has nothing to do with the alleged irregularities. As the appellant was in jail, therefore, he could not appear before the Collector, despite various opportunities and the appellant was guilty of irregularities committed in the Gram Panchayat, Nawalpur as a result his service was terminated vide order dated against 28.12.2021.

3. Being aggrieved by order dated 28.12.2021, the appellant filed W.P. No.20630/2023. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order came to the conclusion that the order of termination dated 28.12.2021 has been passed by the respondent No.2 by invoking Clause 16.1 of the guidelines issued for governing the service of the Gram Rojgar Sahayak(GRS) which provides that Gram Rojgar Sahayak can be terminated if FIR has been registered against him and he has been into custody for more than 48 hours. The learned Single Judge concluded that there is no illegality in the order as such, dismissed the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was appointed as per the terms and conditions. The learned Single Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that it was a case of termination simpliciter. Infact, on perusal of the order dated 28.12.2021, it would be clear as day light that the reason assigned for termination is irregularity has been committed in the PM Aawas Yojna for which the preliminary enquiry has been conducted and , the appellant has been found to be guilty. In such a situation, without affording any opportunity of hearing and as well as to file reply, the order cannot be allowed to stand. Learned counsel further argued that since no enquiry was conducted against the appellant and no opportunity of hearing was provided before passing the order impugned, therefore, he would also be entitled to backwages. Thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the writ appeal be allowed.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the order passed by the learned Single needs no interference in as much as the appellant was working as Gram Rojgar Sahayak and had misused the office and siphoned of the money, proper show cause notice was issued to him and preliminary enquiry was conducted in which the appellant has been found guilty. So far as the claim for backwages is concerned, there are no pleadings either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the same. In such a situation, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. He