Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 264 (MP)

Rajeshdhar Tripathi v. State of M. P.

2004-03-16

DIPAK MISRA

body2004
JUDGMENT The petitioner was selected for the post of Stenographer Grade-III by order dated 28.8.2002 vide Annexure P-7. Thereafter, vide order dated 4th September, 2002 contained in Annexure P-9, the letter of appointment was cancelled. The order of cancellation reads as under: "That, the petitioner was shocked to receive the impugned order dated 4.9.2002 whereby the appointment of the petitioner dated 28.8.2002 for the post of Steno Grade-III was cancelled. The reasons stated in the impugned order was that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner was found to be false and therefore the respondents had passed the impugned order dated 4.9.2002. It was further clarified in the impugned order that any correspondence in this regard would not be entertained hence this petition on the following grounds. The copy of the impugned order dated 4.9.2002 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-9." Assailing the aforesaid order, it is submitted by Mr. KK Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that before the aforesaid order was issued, no inquiry was held. On a perusal of the order, it would be crystal clear that there is such allegation which becomes quite stigmatic. Resisting the aforesaid submission it is contended by Mr. Ramesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Narmada Hydro Electric Development Corporation, Bhopal, that a preliminary inquiry was held vide Annexure R-5 at the level of administration but he is not in a position to show that the petitioner was asked to show cause or was even heard in the matter. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, there remains no trace of doubt that when an allegation has been made that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner had been found to be false, the same required a proper inquiry inasmuch as the order of cancellation is stigmatic. No stigma can be visited without a proper inquiry. Accordingly, the order dated 4th September, 2002 Annexure P-9 stands quashed. The respondent No.2 would be well advised to proceed with the inquiry or allow the applicant to continue. If an inquiry is undertaken, the same shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order passed today. The petitioner would be at liberty to produce the documents to prove his bona fides. The respondent No.2 would be well advised to proceed with the inquiry or allow the applicant to continue. If an inquiry is undertaken, the same shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order passed today. The petitioner would be at liberty to produce the documents to prove his bona fides. I may hasten to clarify that though I have quashed the order vide Annexure P-9, that would not automatically entitle the petitioner to join in his post. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.