Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Singh Jadon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 December, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22997
1 WA-3001-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 17th OF DECEMBER, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 3001 of 2024
SANJAY SINGH JADON
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S.Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri D.S.Raghuvashi - Advocate
for the appellant.
Shri Vivek Khedkar - Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
The present Writ Appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya
Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,
2005 is preferred by the appellant/petitioner being aggrieved by the
order dated 22.11.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.2060/2024, whereby the Writ Petition preferred by the
appellant/petitioner stood dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that appellant (petitioner in writ
petition) was appointed on contractual basis on the post of Gram Rozgar
Sahayak vide order dt.27.10.2010 for one year. Impliedly his contract period
was extended regularly on oral basis. A complaint was received against him
and accordingly C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat, Vijaypur by its report
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 12/23/2024
11:29:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22997
2 WA-3001-2024
dt.14.01.2022 submitted that during inspection/verification of complaint, the
petitioner was not found in the Panchayat Bhawan and even the office of
Gram Panchayat was found closed. The petitioner did not produce original
documents as available with him before enquiry committee. Thereafter, on
18.01.2022, the petitioner was called upon to produce the original record and
to submit his explanation which was replied by him vide letter dt.
23.02.2022. However, original record, according to the petitioner, was not
supplied to him by Ram Lakhan Rawat, Barelal Rathore and Purshottam
Rawat, who were also posted as Panchayat Secretary.
3. A show cause notice was issued to all three persons referred above.
They informed the authority that it was the petitioner, who did not hand over
the original record to them at the time of handing over of charge.
Accordingly, show cause notice dt.06.03.2022 was issued to the petitioner
calling upon him to explain about the defalcation of amount of
Rs.15,38,395/-, which has been paid to father of the petitioner by Proprietor
of Maa Vaishno Building Material. The said amount was received in the
bank account of father of the petitioner namely Rasal Singh. Reply filed by
the petitioner was not found satisfactory. After considering the reply,
Collector/District Programme Coordinator MGNREGA, District Sheopur,
terminated the contractual service of the petitioner. FIR has also been
registered against him vide Crime No.38/2022 at Police Station,
Raghunathpur, District Sheopur for offences under Section 409 of IPC on
07.04.2022.
4. Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner but the same was dismissed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 12/23/2024
11:29:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22997
3 WA-3001-2024
vide impugned order dt.22.11.2024. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court
by way of Writ Appeal.
5 . It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner
that learned Writ Court erred in passing the impugned order. Although FIR
has been registered but no charge sheet has been filed yet and the matter is
under investigation. As per the information of appellant, Khatma is to be
filed in the matter. Therefore, if Khatma report is filed, then appellant will
have a chance to regain the employment as Gram Rozgar Sahayak. He is
innocent and falsely implicated in the matter.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant also raised the question of
violation of principle of natural justice. According to him, sufficient
opportunity of hearing was not granted. Real culprits are those Panchayat
Secretaries whose names were referred by the petitioner earlier and the
petitioner has been falsely implicated, whereas he has nothing to do with the
offence.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant referred the circular dt.02.11.2019
regarding termination of the services of the Gram Rozgar Sahayak,
according to which if the charge sheet is filed against a delinquent or if he
suffered confinement for more than 48 house, then his services can be
terminated. Here appellant did not suffer confinement and charge sheet is yet
to be filed. Therefore, termination is bad in law.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and
submits that police will proceed in accordance with law, however,
allegations again him are serious in nature. Father of petitioner namely Rasal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 12/23/2024
11:29:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22997
4 WA-3001-2024
Singh received amount of Rs.15,38,395/- lac in his bank account from the
firm Maa Vaishno Building Material. The petitioner received the aforesaid
amount from government fund and this amount had to be transferred to Maa
Vaishno Building Material material, but he did not transfer this amount and
instead of that sent the amount to the account of his father. Petitioner did not
provide original documents in the matter. Therefore, he can not be given
benefit of his own wrong. Adequate opportunity of hearing was provided to
him. There is no straight jacket formula regarding assessment of opportunity
of hearing.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. This the case where petitioner’s contractual service came to an end.
Petitioner was appointed on oral/contract basis. The appointment order itself
includes certain exigencies on which services of a person appointed as
contractual employee can be severed. Here it appears that petitioner is facing
criminal investigation also besides departmental proceeding. The services of
contractual employee can be severed after giving adequate opportunity of
hearing and in the case in hand the petitioner was given adequate opportunity
of hearing by the Collector by issuance of show cause notice and soliciting
reply. Not only this, earlier C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat Vijaypur also gave
show cause notice dt.18.01.2022 to the petitioner asking to submit required
record, which was duly replied by the petitioner. Once enquiry has been
conducted by an enquiry committee and show cause notice was given by the
authority to submit original record and plead and prove his part of innocence
and if the petitioner declines, then he can not complain at later point of time
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 12/23/2024
11:29:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22997
5 WA-3001-2024
regarding opportunity of hearing.
11. Even otherwise, opportunity of hearing is not an unruly horse and
no straight jacket formula can be prescribed in this regard. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in the matter of Poonam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2016)
2 SCC 779 held that principle of Audi Alteram Partem has its own sanctity
but the said principle of natural justice is not always put in straitjacket
formula. That apart, a person or an authority must have a legal right or right
in law to defend or assail. Natural justice is not an unruly horse.
Its applicability has to be adjudged regard being had to the effect and impact
of the order and the person who claims to be affected and that is where the
concept of necessary party becomes significant. This aspect has also been
taken care of by Division Bench of this Court {See: Vikas Gupta Vs. Smt.
Merra Singh and others, 2007(2) EFR 46}.
12. The concept of principle of Natural Justice or audi alteram
partem doctrine although is required to be complied with but at the
same time it has some exceptions. In catena of judgments including
the judgment rendered in A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational
Institutions Vs. Pindiga Sridhar, (2007) 13 SCC 352, Haryana Financial
Corpn. Vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, (2008) 9 SCC 31, State of Chhattisgarh
Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Senger, (2009) 13 SCC 600, Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs.
State of Jharkhand, (2010) 11 SCC 278, Natwar Singh Vs. Director of
Enforcement, (2010) 13 SCC 255 and Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Ors, (2015) 8 SCC 519, all
discussed in detail on the different facets of said doctrine of Audi Alteram
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 12/23/2024
11:29:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22997
6 WA-3001-2024
Partem, Principle of Natural Justice/Opportunity of Hearing quotient and
discussed the exceptions also in detail.
1 3 . So far as termination of contractual services is concerned,
petitioner has already been removed by the respondents. Therefore, the
candidate cannot claim any reinstatement as a matter of right on contractual
service. Even otherwise, any order reinstating such employee would be
confined to the extent of completion of one year only and not beyond that,
otherwise, purpose of appointing a person on contract basis would be
defeated.
14. In cumulative analysis, learned Writ Court has considered all the
aspects of the dispute and thereafter passed the impugned order, which does
not require any interference. Resultantly, Writ Appeal sans merit is hereby
dismissed. Impugned order stands affirmed. However, if Khatma report is
filed by the police and charge sheet is not filed against the petitioner, then
petitioner can appear in fray for appointment on the post of Gram Rozgar
Sahayak afresh, if he otherwise fulfills the conditions like; age, no criminal
record and other factors.
15. Accordingly, Writ Appeal stands dismissed with the aforesaid
observations.
(ANAND PATHAK) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 12/23/2024
11:29:28 AM