IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 8 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 10801 of 2009 PRAKASH DUBEY Versus SECRETARY THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Manish Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Akshansh Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a case where while imposing the penalty, the petitioner has been discriminated inasmuch as, on the similar set of charges, the Superintendent of Hostel was also proceeded against and the proceedings ultimately culminated into an order of compulsory retirement. So far as the petitioner is concerned, directly an order of termination is passed. It is contended by the counsel that as per the allegations so levelled in the charges, as the petitioner was absent on 21.09.2007 and 22.09.2007, one of the mates of the hostel fell ill and was ultimately done to death. It is further contended by the counsel that the petitioner in the capacity of Chowkidar, could not have been held liable inasmuch as it was the duty of the Superintendent of Hostel to take care of mates and was also responsible to ensure proper treatment to the students living in the hostel. However, on account of lapses at the behest of the Superintendent of Hostel, unfortunate incident took place. However, after the Departmental Enquiry, only an order of compulsory retirement was passed against the Superintendent of Hostel, whereas the Departmental Enquiry, which was initiated against the petitioner, ultimately culminated in an order of termination. Thus, counsel submits that there cannot be discrimination while imposing the penalty on a similar set of charges arising out of the same set of facts in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372.

2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and contended that after the Departmental Enquiry, the order has been passed; therefore, the same does not require any interference inasmuch as, the petitioner being Chowkidar of Hostel, was responsible for ensuring attention as well as due care to the students.

3. No other point is argued or pressed by both parties.

4. Heard the rival submissions of both parties and perused the record.

5. A perusal of the record reflects that against the petitioner, the following charges were framed:-

"आरोप (cid:5)मांक-1 यह (cid:12)क आप अनु०जाित क(cid:20)या पो०मै(cid:12)(cid:22)क छा(cid:24)ावास तहसीली सागर म(cid:30) चौक(cid:33)दार के पद(cid:36)थ ह(cid:38) आप (cid:12)दना पूव(cid:40) अवकाश (cid:36)वीकृित के (cid:12)दनांक 21.09.207 से िनर(cid:43)(cid:44)ण (cid:12)दनांक 22.09.2 अपने कत(cid:46)(cid:40)य से अनुप(cid:47)(cid:36)थत थे आपका यह कृ(cid:48)य म०(cid:49)० िसिथल सेवा आचरण िनयम 1965 3-1(एक) (दो) का कदाचरण है।

आरोप (cid:5)मांक-2 यह (cid:12)क आपके (cid:52)ारा शासक(cid:33)य काय(cid:40) म(cid:30) लापरवाह(cid:43) एवं उदासीनता बरती गई। आपका

म०(cid:49)० िस(cid:56)वल सेवा आचरण िनयम, 1966 के िनयम 3-1 (एक) (दो) का कदाचरण है।

आरोप (cid:5)मांक-3 यह (cid:12)क आप अपने िनधा(cid:58)(cid:40)रत छा(cid:24)ावास म(cid:30) रा(cid:56)(cid:24) कालीन सेवा म(cid:30) उप(cid:47)(cid:36)थत नह(cid:43)ं रहने से रा छा(cid:24)ावासी छा(cid:24)ा कु० िनशा अ(cid:12)हरवार के बीमार पड़ने पर त(cid:48)काल िच(cid:12)क(cid:48)सा सु(cid:56)वधा उपल(cid:60)ध न हो से छा(cid:24)ा कु० िनशा का असामियक िनधन हो गया। आपका यह कृ(cid:48)य म०(cid:49)० िस(cid:56)वल सेवा आचरण िनयन 1965 के िनयम 3-1 (एक) (दो) का कदाचरण है।"

6. So far as the Superintendent of Hostel, namely, Smt. Vimla Yadav is concerned, the charge-sheet was issued for the following charges:-

"आरोप क-1 शासन (cid:52)ारा जार(cid:43) छा(cid:24)ावास िनयमावली 66-67 म(cid:30) (cid:12)दये गए (cid:49)ावधान के अंतगत(cid:40)

अधी(cid:44)क(cid:33)य पद के दािय(cid:48)व(cid:61) के िनवह(cid:40)न म(cid:30) उदासीनता एवं लापरवाह(cid:43) करना ।

आरोप क-2 छा(cid:24)ावास प(cid:58)रसर म(cid:30) िनवास न क