Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 684 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Saurabh Sharma

2016-08-10

ALOK ARADHE, S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2016
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. In this intra-Court appeal, the appellants have assailed the validity of the order dated 6.7.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5906/2014(S), by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are briefly stated that the respondent was employed on contract basis as Samvida Ayush Chikitsa Adhikari in the year 2011. The period of contract of the service of the respondent was extended from time to time and eventually by order dated 20.5.2014, the period was further extended. The respondent was arrested on 25.5.2014 in connection with some criminal offence and admittedly the respondent remained in custody for a period of more than one month and thereafter he was enlarged on bail. The services of the respondent were terminated by an order dated 27.6.2014 on the ground that the respondent has remained unauthorizedly absent without any intimation for a period of more than one month, by invoking rule 12.6 of the M.P. Ayurved/Homeopathy/Unani Contractual Services (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter for short referred to as “Rules”). In the aforesaid factual background, the respondent approached the Court by filing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by order dated 6.7.2015 allowed the writ petition and directed reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential benefits and also awarded the costs of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent. 4. Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Government Advocate for appellants-State submitted that even if the case of the respondent is treated to be one falling within the purview of rule 10 of the Rules, then also the respondent is not entitled to salary for the period for which he has not performed the duties in view of rule 4.2 of the Rules. The aforesaid aspect of the matter could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Rule 10 of the Rules reads as under :- Þ10- dnkpkj ;k fdlh vkijkf/kd fØ;kdyki esa varxzZLr gksus ij dk;Zokgh&bu fu;eksa ds v/khu fu;qDr O;fDr ds fdlh vkijkf/kd fØ;kdyki esa varxZzLr gksus ;k fdlh dnkpkj djus ij fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dks lquokbZ dk ;qfDr;qDr volj ds i'pkr~ fu;qfDr lekIr dj ldsxkßA 6. Rule 10 of the Rules reads as under :- Þ10- dnkpkj ;k fdlh vkijkf/kd fØ;kdyki esa varxzZLr gksus ij dk;Zokgh&bu fu;eksa ds v/khu fu;qDr O;fDr ds fdlh vkijkf/kd fØ;kdyki esa varxZzLr gksus ;k fdlh dnkpkj djus ij fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dks lquokbZ dk ;qfDr;qDr volj ds i'pkr~ fu;qfDr lekIr dj ldsxkßA 6. From perusal of the aforesaid rule, it is evident that since the respondent was involved in connection with criminal offence and because of that he remained absent from his duties, therefore, the case of the respondent falls within the purview of rule 10 of the Rules and it was incumbent upon the appellants herein to conduct an inquiry before terminating his services. However, in view of rule 4.2 of the Rules, we find that the respondent was not entitled to salary as he did not perform the duties for the aforesaid period. 7. In view of preceding analysis, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the order insofar as it directs reinstatement of the respondent is affirmed, however, the order insofar as it directs payment of salary for the period in question as well as the costs to the respondent, is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Praveen Newaskar, Government Advocate for appellants/State; D. P. Singh for respondent.