1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK

ON THE 4^th OF JULY, 2023

WRIT PETITION No. 14481 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

VED PRAKASH YADAV S/O NARAYAN

SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

OCCUPATION: GOVT SERVENT (AT

PRESENT GOVT PRIMARY SCHOOL

JOHARIYA, DATIA ) DATIA (MADHYA

PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI NEERAJ SHRIVASTAVA-ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH

BHAWAN

BHOPAL

(MADHYA

PRADESH)

2.

COMMISSIONER LOK SHIKSHAN

SANCHANALAY BHOPAL (MADHYA

PRADESH)

3. ^{COLLECTOR THE STATE OF MADHYA}

PRADESH DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.

UPPER COLLECTOR DATIA (MADHYA

PRADESH)

5. ^{JILA SHIKSHA ADHIKARI DATIA}

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI RAVINDRA DIXIT-GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court

passed the following:

ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

2

India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following

reliefs:-

**7-1 fiVh'kuj dh fiVh'ku Lohdkj djrs gq,- fjLiks-dz-2 vk;qDr]

yksd f'k{k.k lapkyuky;] Hkksiky }kjk tkjh fookfnr vkns'k

fnukad 03-05-2023 ¼vusDtj ih&1½ dks fujLr fd;k tkdj

fiVh'kuj ds fo:) lafLFkr foHkkxh; tkap esa fu;qDr tkapdrkZ

vf/kdkjh fjLiks-dz-&4 vij dysDVj ftyk nfr;k dks ifjofrZr

djrs gq, mDr tkap] f'k{kk foHkkx ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa

ls djk;s tkus vFkok vU; fdlh vf/kdkjh ls tks izR;{k :i ls

fjLiks-dz-3 dysDVj nfr;k ds izR;{k fu;a=.k esa u gks- fu;qDr

djus ds vkns'k fjLiksMsUVl~ foHkkxh; izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks iznku djus

dh d`ik djsa] ftlls eq> fiVh'kuj ds lkFk U;k; gks lds A

7-2 vU; mfpr fjV- vkns'k vFkok funsZ'k U;k; fgr esa fiVh'kuj

ds i{k esa tkjh djus dh d`ik djsa] izdj.k O;; fjLiksUMsUV~l ls

fnyk;s tkus dh d`ik djsa A**

2.

It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that he

is working as Madhyamik Shikshak at Government Middle

School, Jhohariya, District Datia. Recently, he has been placed

under suspension vide order dated 13.04.2022 and departmental

inquiry has been started against him vide order dated 25.08.2022.

It is the grievance of petitioner that departmental inquiry has been

initiated at the instance of complaint made by Collector Datia

addressed to Commissioner, Public Instructions vide letter dated

14.03.2022, in which conduct of petitioner has been referred in

different paragraphs.

3.

It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that in

departmental inquiry Additional Collector, Datia has been

appointed as Inquiry Officer and District Education Officer is

being appointed as Presenting Officer. He pleads malafide because

according to him it could not be a fair inquiry as per law.

4.

Learned counsel for respondent/State opposed the prayer

3

and informs this Court that departmental inquiry shall be

conducted in just, free and fair manner. He supported the

impugned action of respondents.

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents appended thereto.

6.

This is a case where petitioner is facing several complaints

and allegations of misconduct as reflected in different documents.

Although, Collector referred his conduct to the Commissioner,

Public Instructions but Commissioner, Public Instructions happens

to be an higher authority then the Collector and before the said

authority it was in the form of a complaint and thereafter on due

consideration subsequent order dated 25.08.2022 has been passed

and it is Commissioner, Public Instructions who appointed

Additional Collector Datia as Inquiry Officer. Commissioner,

Public Instructions being higher authority does not act as per the

dictate of lower authority (Collector) District Datia. Therefore,

contentions of petitioner lack merits. Even otherwise,

respondent/State has already submitted that inquiry shall be

conducted in just, free and fair manner. Therefore, no case for

interference is made out.

7.

Resultantly, petition sans me