##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 19 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 2148 of 2016 PRAYAGNARAYAN Versus PRINCIPAL SCINDIA SCHOOL FORT GWALIOR Appearance:

Shri Prem Singh Pal - learned counsel for petitioner.

Ms.Chitra Bais - learned counsel for respondent.

ORDER This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief(s):

"7.1 यह (cid:3)क, अने(cid:8)चर पी/1 एंव अने(cid:8)चर पी/2 तथा अने(cid:8)चर पी-3 आधारह(cid:21)न होने के कारण िनरtiत करने क(cid:26) कृपा क(cid:26) जाव(cid:29), एवं (cid:30)ितयािचकाकता (cid:31) (cid:32)मांक-1 को आदेिशत (cid:3)कया जावे (cid:3)क, यािचकाकता(cid:31) को (cid:3)दनांक 11/07/2012 से (cid:37)यूट(cid:21) पर मा(cid:40)य (cid:3)कये जाने के आदेश देने क(cid:26)

कृपा क(cid:26) जाव(cid:29)।

7.2. यह (cid:3)क, यािचकाकता (cid:31) को अने(cid:8)चर पी-1, 2, 3 के अनुसार काय (cid:31) से पथृ क करने एवं काय (cid:31) पर रखने तक क(cid:26) अविध का (cid:44)पछला समtiत वेतन भी भुगतान करने हेत ु िनद(cid:49)िशत (cid:3)कया जाव(cid:29)।

7.3 यह (cid:3)क, अ(cid:40)य कोई सहायता, अनुतोष (cid:40)यायालय (cid:40)याय(cid:3)हत म(cid:29) उिचत समझे वह यािचकाकता (cid:31) को (cid:30)ितयािचकाकताग(cid:31) ण से (cid:3)दलाने क(cid:26) कृपा क(cid:26)

जाव(cid:29)।"

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed to the post of Peon (Class-IV employee) in the respondent School on 08.07.1984. It is further submitted that petitioner completed 28 years of service without any allegation or misconduct. However, all of a sudden, a charge-sheet was issued to petitioner and along with the charge-sheet, the list of witnesses and documents was not supplied. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted. It is further submitted that at the time of inquiry, proper opportunity of being heard was not afforded to petitioner and thereafter his services were terminated. Petitioner filed a petition before the Labour Commissioner, Gwalior; however, the Labour Court rejected the claim of petitioner and upheld the order of dismissal. It is further submitted that the services of petitioner were terminated without affording proper opportunity of hearing, without conducting a fair inquiry and without following the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the documents and copies of statements of the management witnesses were not supplied to petitioner. It is further submitted that neither any item was recovered from the petitioner nor were any map of the place, seizure memo, or panchnama prepared. No proper opportunity was provided to petitioner to defend himself. It is further submitted that the Labour Court failed to consider the written submissions filed by petitioner. It is further submitted that with mala fide intention, a junior and colleague-advocate of the employer was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry and the respondents did not grant any opportunity to petitioner to take assistance of an advocate during the inquiry proceedings. It is further submitted that petitioner is an uneducated person and at the time of inquiry, no opportunity was given to have the statements read over and explained to him by any other person. The aforesaid aspect has also not been considered by the Labour Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not admitted the charges. During the inquiry, his signatures were obtained on certain papers and being an illiterate person, he had no knowledge of what was written therein and merely affixed his signature. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another AIR 2016 SC 101 and rendered by High Court of Madhya Pradesh Chatrapal v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 (I) MPWN 48, and rendered by Delhi High Court Indian Bank and others v. Shri Praveen Kumar .

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits