Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 452 (MP)

Girraj Singh Gurjar v. State of M. P.

2016-06-15

ALOK ARADHE, ANAND PATHAK

body2016
ORDER 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 16.6.2015, by which the service of the petitioner, who is a probationer, has been dispensed with without giving him any notice as required under rule 12(a) of Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a singular contention that neither any notice pay nor any notice has been issued to the petitioner before terminating services of the petitioner, therefore, the order is passed in flagrant violation of the Rules. Learned Deputy Government Advocate was unable to point out from the record that either any notice pay or notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The relevant extract of rule 12(a) of the Rules reads as under :- "12(a) Subject to any provision contained in the order of appointment or in any agreement between the Government and the temporary Government servant who is not in quasi permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant : Provided that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before such termination or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month." 5. Thus, it is evident that the order suffers from the procedural irregularity and the same, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is accordingly quashed. Needless to state that the respondents would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised. 6. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Rajmani Bansal for petitioner; Amit Bansal, Deputy Government Advocate for respondents/State.