Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 580 (MP)

Savani Vaghela v. State Of M. P.

2015-05-12

S.C.SHARMA

body2015
ORDER : S.C. SHARMA, J. 1. Parties through their counsel. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 11-12-2014 passed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Alirajpur terminating the services of the petitioner. 2. The grounds mentioned in the order is that the petitioner has committed a misconduct, keeping in view the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 by constructing a room in the Hospital Premises, over the Government land. 3. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Care-taker and by order dated 18-4-2013 a notice was issued to her alleging that she has constructed a room over a Government land. The petitioner has filed a reply and stated that she has infact not constructed any room over the Government land, but has repaired the old structure and based upon the reply, petitioner's services have been put to an end and no enquiry of any kind has taken place in the matter while terminating the services of the petitioner. Of course, a show cause notice was issued by the respondents and there was a categoric denial on the part of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent State has argued before this Court that they have complied with the principle of natural justice and fair play, by issuing a show cause notice. Hence, no case for interference is made out in the matter. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself, with the consent of both the parties. 6. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed on 18-4-2012 and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 5-12-2014 alleging that she has constructed a room over the Government land. She did submit a reply and she has stated that she has not constructed any illegal structure and infact she has undertaken some repair work. Respondents have thereafter terminated the services of the petitioner, without conducting any enquiry in the matter. 7. This Court in the case of Deepak Nagle Vs. State of M.P., (2014) 3 MPLJ 188 held as under:-- "4. Respondents have thereafter terminated the services of the petitioner, without conducting any enquiry in the matter. 7. This Court in the case of Deepak Nagle Vs. State of M.P., (2014) 3 MPLJ 188 held as under:-- "4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that services of the petitioner, who was a contractual employee have been terminated by a non-speaking order without affording him proper opportunity of hearing. It was further submitted that the investigation was carried out behind the back of the petitioner. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on order dated 20th November, 2012 passed in the case of Makhan Lal Ahirwar vs. State of M.P. WP No. 5098/2012. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and since the reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, therefore, his services were dispensed with. 5. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis. Clause 15 of the contract of appointment provides that in case the petitioner is found guilty of any misconduct or is involved in any criminal activities, the competent authority shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and can terminate the appointment. Thus, it is evident that before terminating the services of an employee, who is employed on contract basis, an opportunity of hearing has to be afforded to the delinquent employee. 6. In S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 , the Supreme Court has held that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. While emphasizing the need for assigning reasons, it was held that giving of reasons minimizing the chances of arbitrariness and hence, it is an essential requirement of the Rule of Law. In The Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others, (2010) 3 SCC 732 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. It has further been held that recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. It has further been held that recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. Similar view has been expressed by a Bench of this Court in Makhan Lal Ahirwar (supra). 7. In the instant case, the inspection on the basis of which the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner was not carried out in the presence of the petitioner. Besides that from perusal of the order of termination of the petitioner, it is evident that reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered and no reasons have been recorded and merely conclusion has been recorded. The order of termination of the petitioner, which is stigmatic in nature has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the orders dated 28-12-2012 and 22-1-2013 are hereby quashed. Needless to state, the respondents would be at liberty to take action against, the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of." 8. In light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order which is stigmatic in nature could not have been passed, without conducting any enquiry, specially in light of the fact that there was a total denial on the part of the petitioner of alleged misconduct. Petitioner has categorically denied the so called construction by her and she has also denied that she has not carried out any repair work and the respondents without conducting any enquiry of whatsoever kind, the services of the petitioner has been put to an end. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11-12-2014 is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. Certified copy as per rules.