IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 19145 of 2017

SMT DILESHWARI BEDRE

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Gaurav Maheshwari - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Akshansh Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State

ORDER assailed before the Appellate/Revisional Authority, however, subsequent challenge also went in vain. Thus assailing the impugned order, this petition has been filed.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India while praying for following reliefs:-

"(i) Summon the entire relevant records from the possession

of respondents, for its kind perusal;

(ii) Quash and set aside the orders dated 28.12.2005 (Annexure-P/1), 29.09.2006 (Annexure-P/2), 17.10.2013

(Annexure-P/3) and 06.05.2017 (Annexure-P/4);

(iii) After quashing the aforesaid orders, command and direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on an appropriate post/cadre i.e. Samvida Shala Shikshak etc. as per her entitlement alongwith appropriate arrears, interest,

compensation etc.;

(iv) Any other order/orders, direction/directions may also be

passed;

(v) Cost of the petition."

2. The facts as detailed in the petition reveal that the petitioner was

appointed as Guru Ji. The petitioner's appointment as Guru Ji was cancelled vide impugned order dated 28.12.2005 contained in Annexure P-1. The said order was

3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the impugned order on the face of it is stigmatic and accordingly, the same deserves to be set aside as the petitioner was neither given any opportunity of hearing nor any inquiry was conducted before dispensing with the services of the petitioner. It is further contended by the counsel that the matter now stands in narrow compass in view of the specific averment made in paragraph 11 of the return by the respondent. Paragraph 11 of the return leaves no iota of doubt that the issuance of impugned order was an offshoot of the allegations which were levelled by the present petitioner against the then MLA of molestation. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that along with the return, respondents have also filed Annexure R-1 and R-2. A perusal of Annexure R-2 also reveal that the then MLA had proposed that the present petitioner be punished and the said fact is evident from the third last paragraph of the inquiry report which is contained in Annexure R-1. Thus, counsel while placing reliance on the decision of Gwalior Bench of this Court passed in WP No.1433/2016 (Randhir Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.), submit that impugned order be quashed.

2. Per contra, counsel for the State submits that in the case in hand there were serious complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner not only levelled false and frivolous allegation against the MLA but also there was complaint by Palak Shikshak Sangh which has been brought on record vide Annexure R-1 and thus, taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, it was imperative to dispense with the services of the petitioner and accordingly P-1 was issued, which does not require interference.

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

4. Having considered the submissions and perusal of the record reflects that the petitioner was removed vide order dated 28.12.2005 on the basis of proposal given by the public at large. The respondents after issuance of notice, have filed return and it has been stated by the respondents in Paragraph 11 thereof that the petitioner made complaint against the then MLA of molestation. The said complaint contained frivolous allegation and accordingly owing to that, petitioner was removed from the service, paragraph 11 of the return is reproduced herein :-

"11. The answering respondents submit that Criminal trial and departmental proceeding are two different and distinct proceeding; acquittal of delinquent employee in C