Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1636 (MP)

Girdharilal Varma v. State of M. P.

2014-12-09

S.C.SHARMA

body2014
Judgment S.C. Sharma, J. 1. Smt. Poornima Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. The matter has been heard finally in the motion hearing stage itself, with the consent of parties. The petitioner before this Court has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 24-5-2014 passed by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Sanwer, District-Indore (M.P.) by which the petitioner's services have been put to an end. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was appointed as daily wager on 9-2-1992. He was regularized by an order dated 14-7-2011 and his services were put to an end by an order dated 24-5-2014. The reason assigned in the impugned order of termination is that he has incorrectly informed the Department in respect of the criminal cases which were registered against him and in which he has been acquitted. The petitioner's contention is that both the criminal cases (i.e. Crime No. 85/90 and Crime No. 345/91) were registered against him prior to his joining the services as a daily wager and in both the cases he was acquitted. The aforesaid facts of the case have not been disputed by the respondents and the only contention before this Court is that the petitioner was appointed as a Daily Wager and his services have been discontinued as he had not informed the Department in respect of the criminal cases which were registered against him. This Court has gone through the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State of M.P. and ors., reported in 2010(2) JLJ 291. 3. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench of the Apex Court has considered the earlier judgment delivered in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sahgathan v. Ramratan, reported in 2003 Vol. 3 SCC 437. In the case of Ramratan Yadav (supra) the action of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan in terminating the services of the petitioner was held to be proper as the petitioner therein has suppressed the factum of the criminal case while submitting the police verification form. 3 SCC 437. In the case of Ramratan Yadav (supra) the action of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan in terminating the services of the petitioner was held to be proper as the petitioner therein has suppressed the factum of the criminal case while submitting the police verification form. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamal Nayan Mishra (supra) has held that the termination of services in the manner and method it has been done by the respondents is contrary to Article 311 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner therein was holding a civil post and he could have been removed after holding a departmental inquiry. The Apex Court in the case of Kamal Nayan Mishra, in paragraphs of 17 and 18 are held as under:-- "17. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra), held that the services of a probationer who gave wrong information in regard to material particulars having a bearing on his fitness or suitability for appointment, can be terminated without giving any opportunity to show cause against the proposed termination. But once a probationer is confirmed in the post, his position and status become different as he gets the protection of Article 311. If it is found that the Government servant who is the holder of a civil post, has given any false information during the course of employment, that will have to be treated as a misconduct, and punishment can be imposed only after subjecting him to an appropriate disciplinary proceedings as per the relevant service rules. 18. There are also several other features in this case which distinguish it from Ram Ratan Yadav (supra), First is that Ram Ratan Yadav (supra), related to an employee of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, who did not have the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, whereas in this case we are concerned with a Government servant protected by Article 311. Second is that the attestation form in this case, was required to be furnished by the employee, not when he was appointed, but after fourteen years of service. Second is that the attestation form in this case, was required to be furnished by the employee, not when he was appointed, but after fourteen years of service. The third is that while action was promptly taken against the probationer in Ram Ratan Yadav (supra), within the period of probation, in this case even after knowing that the appellant had furnished wrong information, the respondents did not take any action for seven long years, which indicated that the Department proceeded for a long time on the assumption that the wrong information did not call for any disciplinary or punitive action. The belated decision to terminate him, seven years later was unjustified and violative of Article 311." In light of the aforesaid, as no notices of any kind have been issued to the petitioner at any point of time and the respondents have not conducted any departmental inquiry before terminating the petitioner, as well as in light of the fact that the criminal cases which were registered against the petitioner in which he has been acquitted, and also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is an illiterate person with no academic background, the impugned order dated 24-5-2014 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall be entitled for the 50% backwages and shall be entitled for all the consequential benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.