Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1396 (MP)

Karan Singh (d) through LRs. v. State of M. P.

2008-12-02

VINEY MITTAL

body2008
ORDER (Oral) 1. The petitioner Karan Singh, who has since died on January 6, 2006, and now represented by his legal representatives, has challenged an order dated September 16, 1999, passed by the Divisional Officer, respondent No.2, whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated. 2. The petitioner has claimed that he was appointed and posted as Forest Guard on April I, 1958. He continued to work on the said post to the best of his capabilities. A show cause notice was served upon him on May 25, 1977. Certain charges were levelled against the petitioner. A departmental enquiry was ordered. The petitioner has claimed that the aforesaid departmental enquiry continued for an extraordinary long period of 22 years. Ultimately, an order was passed on September 16, 1999, whereby the petitioner was held guilty of misconduct and as such his service were ordered to be terminated. The order of termination has been appended as Annexure P-7 with the petition. 3. A reply has been filed by the respondents. In the reply, it has been claimed that the petitioner had remained absent from duty w.e.f. 1973 till 1996 and it was on account of the aforesaid absence that a show cause notice was served upon him on May 25, 1977. The respondents have maintained that the petitioner had failed to contact the department, in any manner, and as such was found guilty of misconduct. 4. Various issues arise in the case for adjudication. One of the issues, which may have to be gone into is as to whether the department was justified in prolonging the enquiry proceedings for a long period of 22 years, even if the petitioner, as claimed by the department, had remained un-available and absent. In the ordinary course, the department should have ordered ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner, if he was unavailable, and should have finished the enquiry within a reasonable time. However, it appears that the department had been treating the matter very casually and without any justification, continued to prolong the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner, who was a petty Forest Guard and an illiterate person. 5. Another issue, which may arise for consideration is as to whether, as claimed by the petitioner, he could have slept over the matter all through the aforesaid period, when he had been suspended by the department. No explanation, whatsoever, was offered by the petitioner in the writ petition. 5. Another issue, which may arise for consideration is as to whether, as claimed by the petitioner, he could have slept over the matter all through the aforesaid period, when he had been suspended by the department. No explanation, whatsoever, was offered by the petitioner in the writ petition. That may be a factor, which may be enquired into. 6. At this stage, Shri L. Krisnamurty, Divisional Forest Officer, Indore, who is present in Court has informed the Court that a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner against the termination order, Annexure P-7 and the aforesaid remedy has not been availed of by the petitioner. 7. Since as noticed earlier, both the issues touching the factual aspect of the matter are required to be gone into, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to be relegated to seek his remedy by way of statutory appeal, at the first instance. In the appeal, all the aforesaid questions would be gone into by the Appellate Authority. 8. Since the petitioner has died on January 6, 2006, and is now represented by his representatives, therefore, the LRs. of the petitioner would be entitled to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, in accordance with law. On account of the fact that the matter has remained pending in Court since the year 2000, I deem it appropriate to grant a liberty to LRs. of the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. The aforesaid applicants would be at liberty to take as possible pleas, which are available to them, and shall also be required to prove their case, by placing the cogent material and thereafter the Appellate Authority, after affording an opportunity of hearing to anyone of the applicants, or their authorised representative, would pass a detailed and speaking order, within a period of six months from the date of filing of the said appeal. The present petition is consequently disposed of with the aforesaid observations and liberty.