Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1124 (MP)

Suneel Kumar v. State of M. P.

2017-11-02

ANAND PATHAK

body2017
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 30.7.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, District Gwalior, whereby, powers under suo motu revisional jurisdictions have been undertaken by the Collector, District Gwalior in respect of appointment of petitioner on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and same has culminated into removal of petitioner from services. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner case suffers from vice of principles of natural justice as petitioner was never given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. According to him by execution of agreement dated 8.2.2013 (Annexure P-8), he was appointed on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. After execution of agreement, petitioner was impliedly appointed but all of a sudden on the complaint of respondent No.7, he has been removed from service. Through the document Annexure R/7-1 filed by the respondent No.7, petitioner tried to assert that he was never in receipt of any notice on behalf of office of Collector for appearance in the case and, therefore, he was never intimated and, therefore, he could not put forth his point of view in the revisional jurisdiction. Same is arbitrary and illegal. He challenged the order impugned on merits also. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner but could not factually differ on the basis of documents because respondents could not make out through documents that opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. 4. Counsel for respondent No.7 also opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that petitioner was never given appointment and even existence of agreement put to doubt by the respondent No.7. He submits that sufficient opportunity of hearing was given and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. From perusal of documents, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed; whereby, the civil consequences have been visited in the case in hand; wherein, petitioner was removed from the service. Before receiving the said penalty, petitioner ought to have been heard by the authority. From the record, it appears that petitioner was not given any notice for appearing in the revisional proceedings. Similarly, he was not given any chance to put forth his case,therefore, violation of principles of natural justice is apparent. Before receiving the said penalty, petitioner ought to have been heard by the authority. From the record, it appears that petitioner was not given any notice for appearing in the revisional proceedings. Similarly, he was not given any chance to put forth his case,therefore, violation of principles of natural justice is apparent. Once the petitioner has not been given opportunity of hearing then the whole case is vitiated and, therefore, in the fact situation of the case, impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh adjudication to the Collector, District Gwalior. Parties are directed to appear in the Office of Collector, District Gwalior on 24.11.2017 the date on which, office of Collector would give a date for further hearing. Meanwhile, parties may complete their pleadings, if advised so. 7. Looking to the fact situation of the case as well as long pendency of the case, it is hereby expected from the District Collector that the proceedings shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of first appearance of the parties. 8. Till the proceedings are completed, status quo as it exists today in respect of service conditions of the parties, be maintained. 9. Petition stands disposed of.