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

2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 26844

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sapna Golhani – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 23793/2019



Advocates:
Sanjay Ram Tamrakar,Advocate General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 2 nd OF NOVEMBER, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 23793 of 2019 BETWEEN:-

SAPNA GOLHANI W/O MANISH SAHU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: VARISHTH ADHYAPAK GOVT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL BAGHWADA JANPAD PANCHAYAT SEONI AMLWA HOSHANGABAD WARD NO 15 CENTRAL SCHOOL ZONE NO 1 SEONI MALWA HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SANJAY RAM TAMRAKAR - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT OF PANCHAYAT MANTRALAYA VALABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PANCHAYAT DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SWATI ASEEM GEORGE – DEPUTY GOVT. ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

i) This Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to instant subject matter for its kind perusal.

ii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the part of the impugned order dated 20.8.2015 (Annexure P/11) by which the penalty has been imposed.

iii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to release the increment which has been withheld pursuant to the order dated 20.8.2015 with all consequential benefits.

iv) Any other relief which this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case along with cost of the petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that by order dated 22.8.1998 she was appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Karmi Grade II in the capacity of U.D.T. As per appointment order her services were governed by the provisions of M.P. Shiksha Karmi (Bharti Tatha Sewa Sharten) Niyam, 1997. In exercise of powers under section 95 read with section 70 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, the State Govt. has framed M.P. Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of service) Rules, 2008. Shiksha Karmi Grade II was merged on the post and pay-scale of Adhyapak. Pursuant to the rules, the petitioner was absorbed by order dated 27.11.2007 on the respective post. The petitioner was granted Krammonati on completion of 12 years of service. Thereafter, by order dated 18.10.2011 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Adhyapak. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of her ill health, as she had suffered a miscarriage, she was undergoing the treatment and on account of continuous weakness she remained absent from the school and an internal enquiry was conducted by the Principal of the School and vide letter dated 11.1.2013 Principal of the School informed the Assistant Commissioner, Seoni that the petitioner is continuously absent. Accordingly, by order dated 18.12.2013 the petitioner was placed under suspension. A charge-sheet was issued by the Addl. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Tribal Development, Seoni in which it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner was on unauthorized absence for the last more than one year and accordingly it was alleged that unauthorized absence of the petitioner is in violation of rule 1, 2, 3 of the M.P. Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965 as well as M.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

3. The petitioner submitted her reply on 8.7.2013 stating inter alia that she was not on unauthorized absence but her absence was due to medical illness and she had already forwarded all her medical certificates issued by the Doctor from time to time. The petitioner also disputed the fact with regard to the dates on which she was alleged to have been absent.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top