Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 8 (MP)

Naval Kishore Prajapati v. State of M. P.

2024-01-03

RAVI MALIMATH, VISHAL MISHRA

body2024
ORDER 1. Assailing the order dated 14.9.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.422 of 2011, the writ petitioner has filed this appeal. 2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was granted appointment on daily wages on 13.3.1993 against the sanctioned vacant post. Thereafter, the services of the writ petitioner was confirmed as Peon vide order dated 29.12.1998. His appointment was cancelled vide order dated 24.3.1999 and 1.6.1999 against which he filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal. The civil suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 17.4.2001 and the order of cancellation was set aside. Thereafter, respondents preferred a first appeal which was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.11.2001. Second appeal preferred by him was dismissed vide judgment dated 5.8.2003. Thereafter, they preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 14.7.2010 with an observation that the writ petitioner was working under the respondents prior to 1995. Thereafter, again the respondents have issued notices Annexures P/7 and P/9 dated 5.10.2010 and 2.11.2010 respectively observing that the appointment of the writ petitioner was contrary to the rules. The aforesaid notices were duly replied by the writ petitioner. It was pointed out that in pursuance to the order dated 29.12.1998, he is performing his duties as Peon till date. It is his case that once the order of cancellation of his appointment was set aside in a civil suit and the judgment and decree passed by the civil suit dated 17.4.2001 has attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court then the respondents were having no authority to issue impugned notices Annexure P/7 and Annexure P/9 dated 5.10.2010 and 2.11.2010 respectively therefore, the writ petition was preferred praying for the following reliefs :- "(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the orders Annexures P/7 and P/9 issued by respondent No.2. (ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay all consequential benefits of peon to the petitioner from the date of regularization i.e. 29.12.1998. (iii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay dif erence of salary alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of regularization of services i.e. 29.12.1998. Alternatively the petitioner's services be regularized in view of the directions issued by the apex Court in Uma Devi's case. (iii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay dif erence of salary alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of regularization of services i.e. 29.12.1998. Alternatively the petitioner's services be regularized in view of the directions issued by the apex Court in Uma Devi's case. (iv) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other writ or directions looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and be pleased to award cost of the petition." 3. The writ Court has taken up the matter in analogous hearing with other writ petitions and has dismissed the writ petition considering the fact that in the first appeal the liberty was granted to the respondents to initiate proceedings against the writ petitioner and provide him opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass a fresh order. It was further observed that in pursuance to the policy issued by the Government dated 7.10.2016, the writ petitioner has already been granted the status of Sthai Karmi vide order dated 23.6.2018 and the same was duly accepted by the writ petitioner. Therefore, no relief could have been extended to the petitioner in the writ petition. 4. The record indicates that the writ petition was filed against the show cause notices Annexures P/7 and P/9 dated 5.10.2010 and 2.11.2010 respectively. The show cause notices have been issued to the writ petitioner in pursuance to the liberty granted by the 7th Additional District Judge, Bhopal vide judgment dated 24.11.2001 which reads as under :- ^^;gka ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd vihykFkhZx.k@ oknhx.k dks vxj ;g ekuuk gS fd oknh@izR;FkhZ dh fu;fer fu;qfDr tks dh xbZ gS og fu;eksa dk ikyu u djrs gq;s ;k fu;e fcuk ds dh xbZ gS] rks bl laca/k esa og oknh@izR;FkhZ dks lquokbZ dk ekSdk nsdj mfpr ,oa fof/k vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus ds fy;s Lora= gSA^^ 5. A bare perusal of the show cause notice Annexure P/7 dated 5.10.2010 indicates that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was contrary to the rules and he was asked to submit his reply to the show cause notice to enable the authorities to take a final decision in the matter. Thereafter, again a show cause notice was issued on 2.11.2010 asking for submission of a fresh reply on each and every point which has been mentioned in the show cause notice dated 5.10.2010. Thereafter, again a show cause notice was issued on 2.11.2010 asking for submission of a fresh reply on each and every point which has been mentioned in the show cause notice dated 5.10.2010. The writ petitioner has challenged both the show cause notices on the ground that the judgment and decree passed by the civil Court dated 17.4.2001 has attained finality. Therefore, there was no occasion for the authorities to question the appointment of the writ petitioner. The fact remains that against the show cause notice, writ petition is not maintainable. The writ petitioner may approach the authorities by filing a response to the show cause notice and should have awaited for a final decision to be taken by the authorities. The writ petitioner in a hurried manner has approached this court by filing the writ petition. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India v. Kunishetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 has held as under :- "13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467 , Ulagappa and others v. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639 , State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which af ects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely af ecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter." 7. It is further seen from the record that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was on ad hoc basis and in pursuance to the policy dated 7.10.2016 he has been conferred the status of Sthai Karmi vide order dated 23.6.2018. He has accepted the aforesaid proposition and has not challenged the same. In absence of any challenge to the order dated 23.6.2018, no relief can be extended to the writ petitioner. What is challenged in the writ petition is a show cause notice against which the writ petition is not maintainable and is a premature petition as no final decision has been taken by the authorities till date. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the appellant. The writ Court has not made any observations with respect to the entitlement of the writ petitioner as far as regular pay scale is concerned. The entire action taken by the authorities is in pursuance to the liberty granted to them by the first appellate Court. In all fairness, the writ petitioner should have waited for the final decision to be taken by the authorities in pursuance to the show cause notices. Under these circumstances, the writ court has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition. 8. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Pending interlocutory application stands disposed off.