SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 38590

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J
Kailash Chandra Verma – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 2031/2024



Advocates:
Harshwardhan Sharma,Advocate General

Termination of employment without inquiry or opportunity for defense violates principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) MP Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 - Sections 89, 90, and 92(2) - Termination of services of Gram Rojgar Sahayak challenged on grounds of incarceration exceeding 48 hours due to a criminal case - Termination order quashed for lack of inquiry and opportunity to be heard. (Paras 1-4)

(B) Natural Justice - Principle of natural justice mandates that no order affecting rights should be passed without giving an opportunity to the affected party to be heard. (Paras 1-4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak in 2010 and was terminated on 22.06.2022 after being incarcerated for over 48 hours without a fair hearing or inquiry into the allegations against him. The termination was based on a complaint of misappropriation of funds, which lacked adequate procedural safeguards. (Paras 1-4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the termination was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice, leading to the quashing of the termination order and reinstatement of the petitioner. (Paras 4-12)

Issues: The main issues addressed included whether the termination was valid given the lack of an inquiry and the opportunity for the petitioner to defend himself against the allegations. (Paras 1-4)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that termination is stigmatic and should not occur without a proper inquiry and opportunity for the employee to respond, reaffirming established legal principles regarding procedural fairness. (Paras 4-12)

Result: The petition is allowed; the termination order is quashed and the petitioner is to be reinstated without back wages.

ORDER

The present petition is filed challenging the termination order dated 22.06.2022 whereby the services of the petitioner on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak have been terminated by order dated 22.06.2022 on the ground that the petitioner had incarcerated in the jail for more than 48 hours in a criminal case.

02. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the contractual post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak vide order dated 23.06.2010 and his services were continued from time to time. The petitioner served on his post by discharging his duties sincerely and offering his personal services meticulously and with utmost sincerity and not a single stain had been ever recorded in his entire service career. However, on the basis of a bogus and frivolous complaint lodged by some miscreants at various platforms, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner and in a predetermined manner, the Respondent No.5 held the petitioner and other office bearers of Gram Panchayat guilty for alleged misappropriation of funds of Rs. 17,99,191/-. Subsequently,without there being any adjudication under Section 89 of the Panchayat Act, order for recovery of Rs.5,99,730/- under section 90 of the MP Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam , 1993 was issued straight away against the petitioner. The CEO, Jila Panchayat surprisingly in his order dated 02.02.2022 merely mentions about misappropriation of funds and irregularities but the whole order is silent on the issue that what irregularity has been committed by the petitioner or how the petitioner is responsible for the alleged irregularity. The said order is passed in flagrant violation of principle of natural and also the recovery had been ordered without there being any adjudication under Section 89 of the Panchayat Raj Adhniyam, 1993. Thereafter the notices under Section 92 (2) for recovery of the amount was issued to the petitioner in terms of the aforementioned order of recovery, failing which the petitioner had to be incarcerated in civil jail as provided under sub section 2 of Section 92 of the Act. The petitioner thereafter deposited the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in the account of the concerned authority. On the basis of the same allegation, an FIR was registered and the petitioner remained in jail for more than 48 hours. The respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 22.06.2022 terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak on account of registration of FIR and being subjected to incarceration of 48 hours. The impugned order was passed without holding any enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Being aggrieved 2 WP-2031-2024 IND:34448 Signed by: SOUMYA by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.2 and by order dated 17.11.2022, the said appeal was also dismissed

03. Counsel for the petitioner argued that on the similar allegations, the recovery was ordered and the said recovery was challenged before this Court in W.P. No.6613/2023 which was allowed and disposed of by order dated 02.02.2022 with an observation the respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with the law after taking recourse of provision of section 49 of the Act of 1993. It is argued that the termination of service of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak on the ground of incarceration of 48 hours in police without giving any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has already been quashed by the Division Bench in a case of Appusingh vs. The State of MP & Ors. ( WP No.1551/2023 ) decided on 26.07.2024. The relevant para of the order of the Division Bench is reproduced as under:-

8. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the Division Bench judgment passed in the case of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission , Bhopal & Others reported in 2001(3) MPLJ 616 and Jitendra Vs. State of M.P. & Others reported in 2008(4) MPLJ 670 of this Court wherein it is held that the order of terminatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top