Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 994 (MP)

Vishnu Prasad Agnihotri v. State of M. P.

2006-08-21

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2006
ORDER 1. The petitioner had filed original application No. 289/1991 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short 'Tribunal') challenging the order dated 25.1.1991 (Annexure A-1) issued by the third respondent whereby his services were terminated. On abolition of the Tribunal the matter reached to this Court for adjudication. 2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of peon for two years on probation vide order dated 16.5.1988 (Annexure A-2). He joined the service as probationer peon on 25.5.1988. After about 8 months of completion of the said probation period, an order was issued by the respondents on 25.1.1991 (AnnexureA-1) extending the probation period from 25.5.1990 to 31.1.1991 and also terminated his services with immediate effect by the same order. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached to the Tribunal by filing original application. 3. The petitioner contends that his probationary period was satisfactory, there were no complaints against him. He also contends that the abrupt termination of service after extending the period of probation without affording any opportunity of hearing to him is violative of the principles of natural justice. 4. The respondents filed return and the documents Annexures R-I, RII and R-III They stated that the Selection Committee constituted for selection of the post placed the petitioner at serial number four of the panel for the appointment for the post of Store Attendant, but the petitioner was illegally appointed on the post of peon. In support of this contention, the respondents have filed the letter No. 8192 dated 6.6.1990 of the Additional Director Employment and Training, Jabalpur, M.P. The respondents also contend that for the irregularities committed by the third respondent in appointing various persons including the petitioner the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the third respondent. 5. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the interim order dated 7.2.1991 passed by the Tribunal while admitting the original application, the services of the petitioner have not been terminated and he is still continuing in the employment of the respondents. He has also submitted copy of the order dated 23.12.1998 issued by the Joint director, Employment and Training, M.P., Jabalpur by which he has been promoted from the post of peon to the post of Assistant Grade- III. 6. Perusal of the appointment order makes it clear that the petitioner was appointed on probation for two years vide order dated 16.5.1988. 6. Perusal of the appointment order makes it clear that the petitioner was appointed on probation for two years vide order dated 16.5.1988. Thereafter, the period was extended with retrospective effect vide order dated 25.1.1991 (Annexure A-I) with effect from 25.5.1990 to 31.1.1991 and by the same order his services were terminated. It is not the case of the respondents as is clear from the document (Annexure R-II) dated 18.1.1991 and the letter dated 6.6.1990 filed along with return that the petitioner's services were terminated on account of his unsatisfactory work during the period of his probation. On the other hand, from the documents filed by the respondents, it emerges that during the pendency of the original application he has been promoted. It is also clear that his services were terminated without affording any opportunity of hearing to him for the reason that though his name was fourth in the panel for the post of store attendant, as per the list of the Selection Committee, but he was illegally given appointment on the post of peon. It is not the case of the respondents that the service record of the petitioner during the probationary period was not satisfactory. Admittedly, vide order dated 25.1.1991 (Annexure A-1), the petitioner's probationary period was extended upto 31.1.1991 and by the same order, his services were terminated without affording him an opportunity of hearing. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid, and the fact that during the pendency of this petition, no effort was made by the respondents to get the interim order vacated and as a result the petitioner continued in service for all these years and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been promoted in the year 1998, in my considered view no case for interference in this writ petition is made out. The action taken against the petitioner cannot be said to be just or fair. If the third respondent has committed any mistake or illegality the petitioner cannot be penalised for it. The respondents could not point out as to what has happened to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the third respondent. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner misrepresented or that he obtained the job by fraud. Thus, for no fault of the petitioner his services could not have been terminated. 8. The respondents could not point out as to what has happened to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the third respondent. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner misrepresented or that he obtained the job by fraud. Thus, for no fault of the petitioner his services could not have been terminated. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, the impugned termination order dated 25.1.1991 (Annexure A-1) is quashed.