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

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 17760 of 2012 RAM KUMAR GAUTAM Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shikha Sharma - G.A. for the respondent/State.

ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while praying for following reliefs:-

"(1) It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the order dated 24.09.2007 and 14.05.2008 as contended in Annexure P/17 and P/18 and also entire record of the enquiry on the basis of which the said order is passed and may kindly peruse it and quashed order dated 24.09.2007 (P/17) and 14.05.2008 (P/18), in the interest of justice.

(2) Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, along with the cost of this writ petition."

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Tendu Patta Guard vide an order dated 03.05.1986. The State government issued an advertisement for the regularisation of the persons who were working since 1984, 1985, and 1986. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner's candidature was considered and, accordingly, he was regularised vide an order dated 31.03.1999. Thereafter, a complaint was made against the petitioner while agitating that the petitioner's initial appointment was illegal as the petitioner, while employing fraudulent means, had obtained an order of appointment issued in his favour. Consequently, an order of de- regularisation was issued in his respect. On the basis of the complaint, a charge-sheet was issued on 21.07.2003, in furtherance of which an enquiry report was prepared stating therein that the charges so levelled stood substantially proved. Subsequently, after the issuance of a show cause notice seeking production of original documents from the petitioner, another show cause notice was issued proposing the penalty of removal from service. Ultimately, the order of termination of service dated 24.09.2007 came to be passed, which was assailed before the appellate authority, but to no avail, as the same was affirmed vide an order dated 14.05.2008. Thus, assailing the aforesaid orders, the present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned, dated 24.09.2007 deserves quashment inasmuch as, it is a case where the principles of natural justice were not complied with by the Inquiry Officer. Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing and was proceeded ex-parte as well. It is contended by the counsel that as per the charges levelled against the petitioner, it was alleged by the department that the petitioner secured employment on the basis of a forged appointment order dated 03.05.1986 contained in Annexure P/1. It is further contended by the counsel that before being appointed as such, the petitioner herein had performed duties as a Forest Guard and the said aspect was required to be taken note of by the Authority before proceeding against the petitioner. Unfortunately, the said aspect was not dealt with. The present petitioner before the Inquiry Officer submitted an application requesting to summon the officials of the department, who were instrumental in the issuance of the appointment order of the petitioner. However, the said request was not paid any heed to by the Inquiry Officer and eventually, the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte and the inquiry report was submitted with the Disciplinary Authority. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of the said inquiry report; therefore, in view of the violation of the principles of natural justice, the petition is liable to be allowed.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the impugned order of termination has rightly been issued against the petition