IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 13 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT APPEAL No. 1235 of 2024

BHIMRAO GHATODE

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Ramesh Kumar Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri Aditya Verma,

Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, Deputy Advocate General for the State.

ORDER unavailable, therefore, ex-parte enquiry was conducted against him, but according to the appellant/writ petitioner the procedure which had to be followed even in his absence, that had also not been done and as such, the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside.

Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal

This appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha

Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is filed being aggrieved by order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 15429 of 2017 by which the petition filed by the appellant/writ

petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

2. The facts of the case is that the appellant/petitioner being a

regular employee, the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated without conducting a regular departmental enquiry. The conduct of the respondents is being assailed on the ground that though it is claimed that since the appellant/writ petitioner remained absent from duties and was

3. In essence, the facts of the case are that the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as a Lab Attendant (Science) in Government Science College, Pandhurna, District Chhindwara vide order dated 05.10.1987. According to the appellant/ writ petitioner, vide order dated 12.10.1989, he was kept on probation for a period of one year which was successfully completed by him and as such, by Annexure-P/1, he was given permanency.

4. Vide order dated 08.07.2005, the appellant/ writ petitioner was transferred from Government College, Pandhurna to Government College Damua, District Chhindwara and pursuant thereto, vide order dated 28.07.2005, he was relieved from his duties and joined at the transferred place where according to him, he was allowed to work only for a week w.e.f.

21.12.2005 to 27.12.2005.

5. Being aggrieved with the action of the authorities, the appellant/

writ petitioner filed a petition before this Court i.e. Writ Petition No.17289 of 2006 which vide order dated 06.03.2007 got allowed directing the respondents to allow the appellant/ writ petitioner to join his services at Government College Damua, but when the appellant/ writ petitioner was not allowed to join, then for implementation of order dated 06.03.2007, he filed a contempt petition i.e. Cont. Petition No.152 of 2008, which vide order dated 15.12.2008 got disposed of giving liberty to the appellant/ writ petitioner to institute fresh proceeding before the appropriate forum or Court in accordance to law.

6. Thereafter, the appellant/ writ petitioner approached the authorities asking them to allow him to join his duties, but nothing was done and ultimately, he was informed that since he remained absent unauthorizedly from his duties, therefore, his services were terminated. However, as per the appellant/ writ petitioner, the copy of order terminating his services was never communicated to him and as such, he made a representation dated 21.03.2013 (Annexure-P/7) asking the authority to supply him the copy of order terminating his services.

7. However, during pendency of petition, the appellant/ writ petitioner came to know about the fact that vide order dated 03.07.2006, one S.R. Sharma was appointed as an Incharge Principal, who had issued the order dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure-R/9) terminating his services and, therefore, the challenge is also made on the ground that impugned order since passed by a person who was holding the charge of the post, therefore, his services could not be terminated especially under the circumstances when no departmental enquiry was initiated against him. However, the appella