Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 365 (MP)

Santosh Sharma v. State of M. P.

2020-03-03

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2020
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 6.5.2015, by which the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on the ground that they are not required. 2. I. A. No. 2086/2019 has been filed seeking disposal of the writ petition in the light of the order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Tyagi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh in W. P. No. 491/2017 decided on 28.11.2017. 3. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that order passed in case of Dinesh Kumar Tyagi (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case because the services of the petitioner were dispensed with after following the provisions of rule 12 of the M. P. Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 (in short “Rules, 1960”). 4. In reply, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the notice dated 7.4.2015 (Annexure P/1) was merely an information and it cannot be said to be a valid notice as required under rule 12 of Rules, 1960 and further submitted that in fact, in the notice itself, the respondents should have specifically mentioned the reason for dispensing with the services of the petitioner. 5. Heard the counsel for the parties. 6. The appointment order dated 17.10.2013 of the petitioner has been placed on record, according to which, the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis with a specific condition that the services can be dispensed with by any of the party by giving a one month’s notice as required under rule 12 of Rules, 1960. It was also mentioned that in case, if a person leaves the service without giving a one month’s notice or without depositing the salary of one month in lieu of the notice, then the salary of one month shall be recoverable as a land revenue. 7. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was not holding any permanent post and he was appointed temporarily and was governed by the provisions of Rules, 1960. It appears that the petitioner was arrested in Crime No. 22/2014 for offence under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC and under section 2 (d) 1, 2/4 of M. P. Manyata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937. It appears that the petitioner was arrested in Crime No. 22/2014 for offence under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC and under section 2 (d) 1, 2/4 of M. P. Manyata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937. Thereafter, one month notice was issued on 7.4.2015 (Annexure P/1) informing the petitioner that his services shall be dispensed with from the afternoon of 6.5.2015. 8. So far as the contention of the petitioner that this one month notice cannot be said to be a valid notice under rule 12 of Rules, 1960 and the respondent should have clarified the reasons for dispensing with the services of the petitioner is concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. As per the provision of rule 12 of Rules, 1960, the respondents were required to serve one month notice to dispense with the services of the petitioner. Since no allegations have been made in one month notice dated 7.4.2015 (Annexure P/1), therefore, it is clear that dispensation of the services of the petitioner is nothing but it is merely a termination simpliciter with no stigma. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with by issuing a proper one month notice as required under Rule 12 of Rules, 1960. Since the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts of order passed in the case of Dinesh Kumar Tyagi (supra), therefore, it is held that the petitioner would not get any advantage of the order passed in the case of Dinesh Kumar Tyagi (supra). 10. The petition is misconceived and it is, accordingly, dismissed.