Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 880 (MP)

Brijmohan Verma v. State of M. P.

2006-07-19

S.K.GANGELE

body2006
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging order of termination Annexure P-l dated 10.6.2005 and also the order of Collector, dated 27.7.2005, Annexure P-2, passed in on appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Class III on 1.1.1999. Certificate issued by Block Education Officer with regard to services of the petitioner as Shiksha Karmi Class III has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure P-4. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, copy of which has been filed along with the return by the respondent No.3 as Annexure R-1, on 26.6.2004. As per the show cause notice, it was alleged that the petitioner has constructed a room on his own, which was sanctioned in the primary school building under the campaign of education to all. Hence, he committed a misconduct. It is also alleged that the petitioner did no submit the reply of the aforesaid show cause notice, therefore, an enquiry was conducted by Block Education Officer. He found the charges proved against the petitioner and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.12.2004 and consequently petitioner submitted his reply. Copy of the reply has been filed as Annexure R-3 along with the return dated 23.12.2004 and consequently, the order of termination of service of the petitioner has been passed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the service conditions of the petitioner have been governed by the rules named as Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Rule 7 prescribes the procedure for imposing major punishment. The procedure has not been followed, no charge was served on the petitioner neither any enquiry officer was appointed. The Block Education Officer conducted the enquiry behind back of the petitioner. The order of termination is non-speaking and also along with the second show cause notice, no enquiry report has been furnished to the petitioner. Hence, the order impugned is arbitrary and against the rule. Contrary to this, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, petitioner did not submit the reply and thereafter the Block Education Officer conducted the enquiry and found the charge proved against the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply and after considering the reply the order of termination has been passed. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply and after considering the reply the order of termination has been passed. The Collector has discussed in his order, the details about the misconduct in such a circumstances, petition of the petitioner has to be dismissed. 3. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Kakrmi and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, copy of which has been filed Annexure R-l. It is alleged that the petitioner did not file the reply of the show cause notice, thereafter the enquiry was conducted by the Block Education Officer ex parte and second show cause notice was issued. Petitioner submitted his reply and considering the aforesaid reply, the impugned order of the termination of the petitioner has been passed. 4. The service conditions of the petitioner have been governed by the rules named as Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 framed under section 70(2) and 95(1) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Act, 1993. Because the petitioner completed more than five years as Shiksha Karmi hence as per rule 7 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997, he became permanent employee of the Panchayat and as per rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules, his service condition would be same as other employees of the Panchayat. Rule 7 of the aforesaid rules prescribes imposition of major punishment and as per the aforesaid rule for imposing a major punishment, the charge-sheet has to be issued to the employee along with memorandum and the list of documents and after receiving the reply, the disciplinary authority may appoint an enquiry officer or conduct the enquiry himself and thereafter the enquiry could be conducted and after the enquiry, the enquiry officer has to submit his report to the disciplinary authority and thereafter disciplinary authority shall pass the order of punishment after considering the enquiry report and the reply of the employee and evidence and documents on record. 5. From the facts of the present case, it is clear that only a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which is not in the form of charge-sheet and only one charge was levelled, thereafter no enquiry officer was appointed neither the enquiry was conducted as per the rules named as Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner without giving any copy of the enquiry report and in the order of punishment, two additional charges have also been levelled against the petitioner, Those charges have not been mentioned in the show cause notice. Hence, from the facts, it is clear that the procedure adopted is against the statutory Rules of 1999. Unfortunately, the Collector has not discussed anything about the statutory rules. 6. Consequently, petition of the petitioner is allowed, the impugned order Annexure P-l is hereby quashed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner would not be entitled for any back wages. But, he would be entitled to continuity of service and other benefits. No order as to costs.