Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 921 (MP)

Vinod Kumar Dhakad v. State of M. P.

2015-09-02

B.D.RATHI, R.S.JHA

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2015, being aggrieved by order dated 16.7.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4451/2015(S), whereby the petition filed by the appellant/petitioner against the order dated 3.7.2015 bringing to an end the contractual service of the appellant/petitioner on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak, has been dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had been appointed on contractual basis on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak vide order dated 24.12.2012 and continued to work on the said post. It is submitted that the authorities allege that the appellant was trapped while accepting bribe of Rs.5,000/- by the Special Team of the Lokayukt on 3.7.2015 and on that ground, in exercise of powers under Clause-15 of the order of appointment of the appellant, his services have been terminated by order dated 3.7.2015 by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kailaras, District Morena. It is stated that as the impugned order had been passed without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the appellant or conducting any enquiry and as the order is stigmatic and punitive, therefore, the appellant had assailed the same by filing Writ Petition No.4451/2015 but the same has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court without properly appreciating the contention of the appellant regarding denial of notice and opportunity of hearing. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. From a perusal of the record it is apparent that the appellant was appointed as Gram Rozgar Sahayak on contractual basis for a period of 12 months and though it is stated that the appellant continued to work on the said post, there is no order or document on record to indicate that the contractual period of appointment of the appellant was extended. It is also apparent from a perusal of the record that the appellnat was caught taking bribe of Rs.5,000/- on 3.7.2015 pursuant to which the impugned order has been passed cancelling the appellant’s contractual appointment. It is also apparent from a perusal of the record that the appellnat was caught taking bribe of Rs.5,000/- on 3.7.2015 pursuant to which the impugned order has been passed cancelling the appellant’s contractual appointment. It is also undisputed and infact admitted by the appellant himself that pursuant to the aforesaid incident a first information report has already been lodged against the appellant but no challan has been filed till date. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, it is apparent that the appellant’s services have been brought to an end of account of registration of a first information report in respect of an incident in which the appellant was caught accepting bribe. This fact is undisputed and admitted. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, even if Clause-15 of the appointment order, upon which heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, would have been properly invoked and even if a show cause notice is issued to the appellant, it would not make any difference and will be a useless formality as it an undisputed fact that the impugned order has been passed on account of registration of a criminal case. In other words, even if a show cause notice would have been issued to the appellant, it would not have made any difference to the outcome of the case as the basis on which the order dated 3.7.2015 has been passed, that is, the fact of registration of a criminal case, is undisputed and admitted and the appellant in reply, cannot contend that the criminal case has not been registered. 6. This Court in the case of Munna Lal Yadav v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour and another, 2006(3) MPHT 39 , after consdering several decisions of the Supreme Court, has held that in cases of admitted and undisputed facts and in cases were issuance of show cause notice would not have made any difference to the conclusion, the requirement of the show cause notice can be dispensed with and cannot be insisted upon as compliance thereof would not serve any useful purpose. This Court has also held that the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked as hackneyed incantations to be thoughtlessly incited in all cases. 7. This Court has also held that the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked as hackneyed incantations to be thoughtlessly incited in all cases. 7. Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Smt. Rekha Pandey v. State of M.P. (Writ Petition No. 5298/2007) decided on .17.2015, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and others [ (2007)4 SCC 54 ], State of Manipur and others v. Y. Token Singh and others [ (2007)5 SCC 65 ] and Haryana Financial Corporation ans another v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja [ (2008)9 SCC 31 ] and Hitendra Singh s/o Bhupendra Singh and others v. Panjabrao Deshumukh Krishi Vidyapeeth by Registrar and others [ (2014)8 SCC 369 ]. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal, filed by the appellant, being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed.