Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 750 (MP)

ONKAR PRASAD PAURANIK v. STATE OF M P

2009-06-30

P.K.JAISWAL

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner, by this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India, is challenging the resolution dated 26/4/1995 passed by respondent No. 3 vide Annexure-A/7 whereby his services have been terminated on the ground that he has not passed Hindi Typing Examination within a period of six months from the date of his appointment. ( 2. ) IN brief, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division clerk by the Dy. Director, Panchayat and Social Services, Damoh vide order dated 25/4/1994 in Janpad Panchayat, Padera in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530/ -. As per the terms and conditions of the appointment, the petitioner has to pass the Hindi Typing Examination within six months from the date of his joining. He on 28/10/1994 passed the Hindi Typing Examination from m. P. Shorthand and Typing Board. Necessary certificate from the said Board was issued vide Annexure-A/2. The petitioner submitted the said certificate on 10/11/1994 vide Annexure-A/3. ( 3. ) THE sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 has committed several irregularities in the appointment of primary School Teachers and the petitioner made complaint against respondent No. 3 and, therefore, respondent No. 3 vide impugned resolution terminated his services on the ground that he has not passed the Hindi typing Examination. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after passing the resolution, no order has been passed and the said resolution has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in violation of the principles of natural justice. ( 4. ) THIS petition is of the year 1995. Neither any return nor any reply has been filed by the respondent No. 1. On 1/5/1996 this Court issued notice on admission and also granted interim relief to the petitioner and directed the respondents to pay salary and other allowances payable to the petitioner as per rules with effect from 1/7/1995 within a month and pay the current salary to the petitioner regularly. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner made a statement at Bar that in view of the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner, he is still working as Lower Division Clerk. ( 6. ) ON the other hand, Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner made a statement at Bar that in view of the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner, he is still working as Lower Division Clerk. ( 6. ) ON the other hand, Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, drew my attention to reply filed on behalf of Chief Executive Officer on 13/4/2009 and submitted that after resolution dated 26/4/1995, a show cause notice was issued by Chief Executive Officer on 20/6/1995 vide annexure-R/2-1. He is not in a position to state whether after issuance of show cause notice any order has been passed by respondent No. 2 or not. ( 7. ) CONSIDERING these facts, the resolution dated 26/4/1995 passed by respondent No. 2, so far as it relates to the termination of the service of the petitioner, is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue a fresh show cause notice and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties decide the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with the rules. ( 8. ) TILL then the interim passed by this Court shall continue. ( 9. ) WITH the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.