Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 623 (MP)

Meera Kushwah v. State of M. P.

2015-06-17

SUJOY PAUL

body2015
ORDER 1. This order shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid writ petitions. Since similar point is involved in all these matters, matters were analogously heard with consent and are decided by this common order. 2. The facts are taken from Writ Petition No.6417/2010 (Smt. Meera Kushwah v. State of M.P. and others). It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was selected as Female Health Worker (ANM) in the year 1992- 93. The certificate of clearing the examination of ANM is annexed as Annexure P-2. The petitioner was appointed as ANM by order dated 3.4.1996 (Annexure P-3). It is contended that on the basis of some anonymous complaint, the Collector, Sheopur directed the petitioner to submit all relevant documents relating to her educational qualification. Pursuant to this letter of Collector dated 31.5.2005 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner submitted her relevant documents in original by Annexure P-5. It is contended by Shri Pawan Dwivedi that for about five years no action was taken by the respondents. Suddenly by order dated 5.6.2010, a direction was issued to stop salary of the petitioner and discontinue her. This order dated 5.6.2010 was put to test before this Court in Writ Petition No.3548/2010. However, during pendency of said case, the termination order dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P-1) was passed and, therefore, earlier petition was withdrawn with liberty to assail the termination order. 3. The bone of contention of Shri Dwivedi is that the petitioners are substantively holding the relevant post. They are permanent employees. The impugned order shows that their services are terminated because of submission of forged mark sheet. It is urged that this allegation amounts to misconduct and to establish the misconduct on the part of the petitioner, it was obligatory on the part of respondents to conduct an enquiry in consonance with rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity, the ‘CCA Rules’). The order impugned is called in question on the ground that no departmental enquiry was conducted and without following the principles of natural justice, the petitioner’s services were terminated. 4. Per Contra, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner has a remedy to file appeal under rule 23 of CCA Rules. Hence, this petition be not entertained. It is further contended that the department verified the correctness and genuineness of the relevant certificate submitted by the petitioner. 4. Per Contra, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner has a remedy to file appeal under rule 23 of CCA Rules. Hence, this petition be not entertained. It is further contended that the department verified the correctness and genuineness of the relevant certificate submitted by the petitioner. The Board of Secondary Education by communication dated 12.4.2010 informed that the certificates in question are forged documents. It is strenuously contended by Shri Dwivedi that the allegations mentioned against the petitioner are factually incorrect. Their documents are genuine. It is not clear as to which document was sent for verification by the department to the Board and which document has been verified and certified. In absence thereto, the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 5. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 6. I have bestowed my anxious consideration on the rival contentions of the parties. 7. This is not in dispute that before terminating the services of the petitioner, no departmental enquiry was conducted. Since principles of natural justice are violated, this petition can be entertained despite availability of alternative remedy. After five years from the date of termination, I am not inclined to relegate the petitioner to avail the alternative appellate remedy. Hence, this objection of State is overruled. 8. The allegations against the petitioner are very serious. If the allegations are proved, no order other than terminating petitioner’s services can be passed. If employment is secured on the basis of forged document, the inevitable consequence must be termination of service. However, this can be done only after following the principles of natural justice/rules. The stand of the petitioner is that the enquiry was conducted behind her back. It is not made clear as to which documents were sent for verification. In this factual scenario, I deem it proper to provide a post-decisional hearing to the petitioner. 9. It is apt to mention here that while issuing notices in this matter on 27.10.2010, no interim relief was granted to the petitioner. The apex Court considered various judgments on the point of post-decisional hearing in Canara Bank and others v. Debasis Das and others [ (2003) 4 SCC 557 ]. The apex Court opined that normally post-decisional hearing is not a substitute for pre-decisional hearing but in absence of prejudice to the party, pre-decisional deficiency can be compensated by postdecisional hearing. The apex Court considered various judgments on the point of post-decisional hearing in Canara Bank and others v. Debasis Das and others [ (2003) 4 SCC 557 ]. The apex Court opined that normally post-decisional hearing is not a substitute for pre-decisional hearing but in absence of prejudice to the party, pre-decisional deficiency can be compensated by postdecisional hearing. It is further held that in a given case postdecisional hearing can obliterate the procedural deficiency of a pre-decisional hearing. Though in all cases the post-decisional hearing cannot be a substitute for pre-decisional hearing, in the case at hand the position is different. 10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to set aside the impugned order. I deem it proper to dispose of this petition by directing the respondents to follow the principles of natural justice, issue show cause notice/charge sheet to the petitioner and after following the principles of natural justice/rules, pass appropriate orders. The said order shall be passed dispassionately without getting influenced by order, Annexure P-1. The entire exercise be completed within eight months from the date of production of copy of this order. It is further ordered that if after the enquiry, it is found that the documents submitted by the petitioner were forged documents, appropriate criminal proceedings be also lodged against the petitioner. In other words, if documents are ultimately found to be forged in the enquiry, FIR be lodged against the petitioners. 11. Petitions are disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. ................