Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 150 (MP)

R. K. Piplewar v. State of M. P.

2005-02-01

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2005
JUDGMENT Sir Edward Coke has said: "Reason is the life of the law: nay the common law itself is nothing else but reason .... The law which is the perfection of reason." This quotation of Sir Edward Coke has been quoted because no reason has been assigned in the impugned order ignoring Annexure R-2 dated 27.5.1985 which is an order passed by DIG Police, Jabalpur and according to me it is a crucial document which ought to have been considered by the Tribunal while dismissing the Transfer Application (911/88) of the present petitioner. Since the material and relevant document has not been considered and no reason has been assigned for its non-consideration, it made a cause to the present petitioner to file this review petition which was originally filed before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. However, on account of the abolition of the Tribunal, this review petition has been received by this Court for its adjudication. The petitioner filed writ petition before this Court on 3.5.1988 and the same was registered as Miscellaneous Petition No. 1742/88. Since the Government of Madhya Pradesh established the State Administrative Tribunal, as such the writ petition of the petitioner was transferred to the Tribunal, as petitioner was a Government servant and at the relevant point of time he was serving on the post of Stenographer. The petitioner on 26.3.1985 was served by an order, passed by S.P. Balaghat and by this order, his services were directed to be terminated after one month, since his services were no more required. This order was filed as document No. 4 in the writ petition. In the writ petition, the specific pleading of the petitioner is that there was no reason for terminating his services. A prayer was made in the writ petition for quashment of the impugned order dated 26.3.1985 (document No.4). The return was filed on behalf of the respondents and thereafter, the Tribunal vide impugned order, dismissed the Transfer Petition on the ground that the termination order is not illegal or irregular in any manner. According to the Tribunal, the impugned order (document No.4) of writ petition, was passed in accordance with the rules of the State Government. It has been canvassed by Shri R.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner that, indeed, the order, terminating the services is nothing, but is punitive in nature. According to the Tribunal, the impugned order (document No.4) of writ petition, was passed in accordance with the rules of the State Government. It has been canvassed by Shri R.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner that, indeed, the order, terminating the services is nothing, but is punitive in nature. According to the learned counsel, if the veil is lifted one can easily visualize that the order is stigmatic in nature and since no departmental enquiry was conducted, the order of termination could not have been passed. In this regard, he has invited my attention to Annexure R-2 dated 27.5.1985 filed along with the return. Facing this tight situation, in reply Shri Ashok Agrawal, learned Government Advocate has submitted that the order Annexure R-2 dated 27.5.1985, has been passed by DIG Police Jabalpur deciding and dismissing the representation of the petitioner. However, no fault is pointed out by counsel for petitioner in document No.4 dated 26.3.1985, which is the termination order of petitioner. According to learned Government Advocate, there is no mistake apparent on the face of record and no case for review is made out and thus this review petition be dismissed. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. On going through document No.4, .which is a termination order simplicitor and particularly the language and the manner in which it is written, one can easily say that the order is not stigmatic in nature. But, at the same time when the order Annexure R-2 dated 27.5.1985 issued by DIG (Annexure R-2) is read conjointly with document No.4, it is revealed that the DIG on examining the service record of the petitioner found that he (petitioner) served in irresponsible manner. According to me, the Tribunal should have taken into consideration this document while deciding the transfer application of the petitioner. What would be the fate of the case, if the said document would have been considered, is wholly unwarranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case. However, the document Annexure R-2 is a document which requires consideration, since it may take a turn in the case. What would be the fate of the case, if the said document would have been considered, is wholly unwarranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case. However, the document Annexure R-2 is a document which requires consideration, since it may take a turn in the case. In the case of Ranjeet Singh Sonkar v. Basant Kumar Dvivedi and others, 1993(1) Vibha 179, the Single Bench of this Court while deciding the scope of the review application in para 8 has held that if a material and relevant documentary evidence is not considered, it would amount to mistake apparent on the face of record and in that case the review is permissible. The similar is the view of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jaswantpuri and others 1989 JLJ 413 = AIR 1989 MP 115 ]. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that by not considering Annexure R-2, which is a material document, not assigning any reason for its non-consideration is a mistake apparent on the face of record and for this reason I am constrained to allow this review petition. Ex-consequenti this review petition is hereby allowed and the Transfer Application No. 911/88 (Ram Kishore Piplewar v. State of M.P. and others) which was dismissed by Tribunal on 30.12.1995 shall now be re-heard on merits. The Registry is hereby directed to register the said Transfer Application in the register of writ petition for its disposal. Since the matter is quite old one, as the same was filed long back on 3.5.1985, the petition may be heard at an early date. No costs.