Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1055 (MP)

Ghanshyam Sharde v. State of M. P.

2013-09-04

S.C.SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT S.C. Sharma, J.:- Mr. Sudhanshu V. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Neelam Abhyankar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents-State. 2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 30-7-2010, by which his services have been put to an end. 3. Petitioner's contention is that his real brother was murdered by certain persons on 19-2-2009 and he was the sole bread winner of the family. The respondent State in light of the policy issued by the State Government dated 28-8-2003 has granted appointment to the petitioner as a daily-wager. The petitioner's contention is that certain persons were subjected to trial for killing his brother and have been acquitted by the learned Special Sessions Judge, vide judgment of acquittal dated 10-5-2010. The petitioner has further stated that the learned Sessions Judge has directed the State Government to withdraw all the benefits extended to the family. The petitioner's contention is that without hearing the petitioner and without issuing a show cause notice of any kind, the impugned order has been passed putting an end the services of the petitioner and, therefore, as the impugned order has been passed without following the principle of natural justice and fair play deserves to be set aside. 4. Reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the State Government is that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager, on account of murder of his brother which took place on 19-2-2009 and as the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment of acquittal dated 10-5-2010 has directed the State Government to withdraw all the benefits extended to the family, hence the impugned order dated 30-7-2010 has been passed. It has been stated that on account of statements given by the family members of the deceased, learned Special Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused persons and, therefore, in compliance of the order passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, the order granting the benefit to the petitioner has been withdrawn and his services have been put to an end. The respondent State has prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The matter is being heard finally with the consent of both the parties. 6. The respondent State has prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The matter is being heard finally with the consent of both the parties. 6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a member of a reserved category and his brother was killed on 19-2-2009. The State Government has framed the policy to grant appointment to a family member and the policy has been framed, keeping in view Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act read with Rules of 1996. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner's brother was murdered and on account of murder, the appointment order was issued on 9-12-2009. It is true that the persons accused in the crime, have been acquitted and learned Sessions Judge has directed the authorities to withdraw the benefits conferred upon the family, on account of murder, which has been taken place on 19-2-2009 and the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner, who was working as a daily-wager, by passing an impugned order dated 30-7-2010. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was not heard at any point of time by the learned Sessions Judge while delivering the judgment nor the Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Khargone nor the Collector, Khargone has heard the petitioner, at any point of time, while passing the impugned order. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner's real brother was murdered on 19-2-2009 and on account of the aforesaid murder, the petitioner has been granted appointment as a daily-wager. 7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order as it has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and fair play deserves to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in service. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.