Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/5856/2020 of DEVKARAN PATIDAR Vs STATE OF M.P. THROUGH MINISTRY OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARION THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 5856 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
DEVKARAN PATIDAR S/O SHRI DEVDAS PATIDAR,OCCUPATION: GRAM ROJGAR SAHAYAK(PRESENTLYTERMINATED), R/O GRAM PANCHAYAT GOLEWADI,JANPAD PANCHAYAT, TEHSIL SEGAON, DISTT-KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI RANJEET SEN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1.STATE OF M.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPALSECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PANCHAYAT ANDRURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN,BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PANCHAYAT ANDRURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN,BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.MADHYA PRADESH STATE EMPLOYMENTGUARANTEE COUNCIL THROUGHCOMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT AND RURALDEVELOPM ENT, NARMADA BHAWAN, IINDFLOOR, C-WING, 59, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)GUARANTEE COUNCIL THROUGHCOMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT AND RURALDEVELOPM ENT, NARMADA BHAWAN, IINDFLOOR, C-WING, 59, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.COLLECTOR, KHARGONE, DISTRICT KHARGONE(MADHYA PRADESH)(MADHYA PRADESH)
4.ZILA PANCHAYAT KHARGONE THROUGH CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PANCHAYAT OFFICEKHARGONE, (MADHYA PRADESH)EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PANCHAYAT OFFICEKHARGONE, (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.JANPAD PANCHAYAT SEGAON THROUGH ITSCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD SEGAON,DIST KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD SEGAON,DIST KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
6.GRAM PANCHAYAT GOLEWADI, THROUGHSARPANCH/SECRETARY TEHSIL KHARGONE,DIST KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)SARPANCH/SECRETARY TEHSIL KHARGONE,DIST KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI KOUSTUBH PATHAK, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THERESPONDENT/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated12.06.2017(Annexure-P/1) and 27.08.2016(Annexure-P/2), passed by therespondent Nos.3 and 4 whereby the service of the petitioner has beenterminated from the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak of Gram PanchayatGolewadi.
2. That the petitioner was initially appointed as Gram Rozgar Sahayak inGram Panchayat, Golewadi, Janpad Panchayat Segaon, District Khargone. Thepetitioner was regularly working on the post of the aforesaid post at GramPanchayat Golewadi. The Madhya Pradesh State Employment GuaranteeCouncil, which is an organization constituted under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of State Government of Madhya Pradesh had issuedthe direction for appointment/ Discipline/Control of the Gram Rozgar Sahayakin every Gram Panchayat in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The respondent no.4 issued the impugned termination order dated 27.08.2016 alleging certainirregularities in the work of construction of road in the Gram Panchayat,Golewadi and enquiry was also conducted by the respondent no.4 and as aresult of which, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitionerhas submitted his reply and denied the allegation levelled in the show cause andalso assigned the reasons in respect of the alleged misconduct.
3. That, as per M.P. State Employment Guarantee Council, which is an
3. That, as per M.P. State Employment Guarantee Council, which is an organization constituted under the Panchayat and Rural DevelopmentDepartment of State Government, has issued the direction for appointment /discipline/ control of the Gram Rozgar Sahayak in every Gram Panchayat in theState of M.P. and as per the Clause 15 of the aforesaid circular, the ProgramOfficer of Janpad Panchayat is the Administrative Controlling Authority and asper Clause – 15.2 the Collector is empowered to terminate the services of theGram Rozgar Sahayak, and as per Clause 16 of the aforesaid rules, it is theGram Panchayat who can terminate the service of the Gram Rozgar Sahayak inSpecial conditions, but in the present case all these legal fiction/situation havenot been followed by the respondent no.4. and the impugned terminated orderdated 27.08.2016, has been passed by the respondent no.4, which has beenwrongly uphold by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Being aggrieved with the saidorder(s) the petitioner has filed the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned ordersare illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that the respondent no.4 withoutconsidering the provisions of 15.01, 15.02 and 16 of the scheme according towhich the respondent no.4, is not empowered to terminate the service of thepetitioner, and the aforesaid impugned order Annexure-P/1 has been wronglyuphold. He further submits that the respondents have acted in high handedmanner and without following the instructions/guidelines issued by the HigherAuthorities, issued the impugned termination order. Thus, the action of therespondents is unjust and arbitrary. In the present case, neither any charge-sheethas been issued against the petitioner nor any enquiry has been conductedbefore passing of the impugned stigmatic order. In such circumstances, heprays that the impugned orders be set aside. He further relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev GandhiShiksha Mission, Bhopal 2001 (3) MPLJ 616 and Prakash Chandra Keinvs. State of M.P. and others 2010 (3) MPLJ 179.
5. The respondents have filed the reply and has submitted that a numberof complaints has been received against the petitioner. After receiving thecomplaints a Committee was constituted for conducting an enquiry against thepetitioner and on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Committee ashow cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after giving opportunity tothe petitioner to file reply, the respondent has terminated the services. In suchcircumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is working on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and neither any charge-sheet has been issued to thepetitioner at any point of time nor any enquiry was conducted with theparticipation of the petitioner. This Court has passed the judgment in the caseof Ramchandra vs. State of M.P. and others decided in W.P.No.16572/2014 on 02/08/2017and several other writ petitions on the subjectare under consideration before this Court.
8. In the light of the aforesaid as no charge-sheet was issued to thepetitioner and no enquiry has been conducted, the impugned ordersdated 12.06.2017(Annexure-P/1) and 27.08.2016(Annexure-P/2), passed by therespondents deserves to be quashed and are accordingly, quashed. Therespondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service; however a libertyis granted to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, in case ifneed so arises in future.
9. With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
pn
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)JUDGE