Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 195 (MP)

SHIV SHANKAR THAKRE v. M. P. S. E. B. , JABALPUR

2022-02-03

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, RAVI MALIMATH

body2022
(Heard through Video Conferencing) ORDER PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. : – This intra Court appeal takes exception to order dated 2-12-2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12749 of 2021, whereby petition filed by appellant-petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner filed petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, being aggrieved by order dated 7-3-2011 pronounced on 24-5-2011 by the Labour Court refusing to interfere in order dated 30-3-2007 passed by respondents-authorities dismissing the services of the appellant. 3. The appellant submits that he entered into services of erstwhile M.P.E.B in the year 1991 as unskilled labourer and in terms of order dated 27-11-1995, he was given regular pay scale of Line Attendant. Accordingly, he joined on the post of Line Attendant on 4-12-1995. Since then he was working, however, vide order dated 24-7-1996, he was placed under suspension and on 8-8-1996, a charge sheet was issued to him for alleged misconduct of submitting forged mark sheet of 8th standard. The appellant stated that there was no requirement of educational qualification of passing 8th class examination and, therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to submit any forged mark sheet. The charge sheet could not have been issued beyond a period of one year from the date of commission of a misconduct and the same is in violation of Rule 12(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court dated 21-1-2009 passed in the case of Divisional Engineer and others vs. Badri Prasad Baraiya, W. P. No. 13601 of 2008 (S) dated 21-1-2009 to submit that in absence of any domestic inquiry, the termination of the services of an employee was found to be illegal. 5. The case of the respondent before the writ Court was that the appellant was regularized vide order dated 27-11-1995 and he joined on 4-12-1995 and pursuant to the condition of his appointment, he furnished his 8th standard mark sheet which was found to be forged. Within a period of two years from the date of his appointment on probation, decision to initiate departmental inquiry was taken on 8-8-1996, therefore, there was no violation of standing order. Within a period of two years from the date of his appointment on probation, decision to initiate departmental inquiry was taken on 8-8-1996, therefore, there was no violation of standing order. It was also stated that the appellant was given full opportunity of hearing to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and produce his defence. The Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of the charge and hence a show cause notice was also given to the appellant proposing penalty of his dismissal. The appellant submitted his reply on 27-8-1999 and, at the same time, he had also challenged the show cause notice before the Labour Court. The Labour Court dismissed the challenge to the show cause notice which was also affirmed by the Industrial Court and finally the punishment was inflicted on 30-3-2007. 6. So far as the submission with regard to initiation of the departmental inquiry within a period of one year is concerned, the same is found to be of no help to the appellant for the reason that order of his appointment is dated 27-11-1995 and he joined his service on 4-12-1995 on probation of two years and the charge sheet was served on him on 8-8-1996 i.e. well within a period of one year. 7. So far the requirement of submitting mark sheet of 8th class is concerned, the learned Single Judge has recorded in paragraph No. 8 of the impugned order that the same was done in compliance of the order of his appointment. The learned Single Judge considered the document D-20 issued by the Superintending Engineer requiring the educational qualification of 8th class and other relevant documents. 8. In the instant case, a regular departmental inquiry was conducted after giving full opportunity of hearing and the order of dismissal has been passed by the disciplinary authority which has been affirmed by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge has also extensively considered the submissions made by the appellant and did not find any substance. There is limited scope of interference at this appellate stage when there are concurrent findings of facts by the disciplinary authority, Labour Court and is affirmed by the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. There is limited scope of interference at this appellate stage when there are concurrent findings of facts by the disciplinary authority, Labour Court and is affirmed by the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. So far as the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in the case of Badri Prasad, is concerned in that case also this Court declined to interfere into the findings given by the Labour Court in favour of the employee. Since, in the present case, the order of termination has not been interfered by the Labour Court and is affirmed by the learned Single Judge, hence in absence of any perversity, we do not find any reason to take contrary view. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.