IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK th ON THE 4 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 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH

1.

BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

COMMISSIONER LOK SHIKSHAN

2. SANCHANALAY BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

COLLECTOR THE STATE OF MADHYA

3.

PRADESH DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

UPPER COLLECTOR DATIA (MADHYA

4.

PRADESH)

JILA SHIKSHA ADHIKARI DATIA

5.

(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 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 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 merit and is hereby dismissed.

(ANAND PATHAK)

JUDGE van VANDANA VERMA

2023.07.05