Vikram Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the orders dated 30.10.2018 and 14.06.2019 passed by the respondent no.3 and 4.

Issue notices to the respondents on payment of Process Fee within a period of three days by both modes.

Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.

Heard, on the question of interim relief.

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. He was working on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat-Karri, Tahsil Bada Malhara. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner dated 29.10.2018. The said notice has been annexed to the petition as Annexure-P/1 which reads as follow:-

** विषयान्तर्गत यह संज्ञान में आया है कि समाचार पत्र दैनिक भास्कर में दिनांक 25.10.2018 को विक्रम सिंह ग्राम रोजगार सहायक ग्राम पंचायत कर्री रात में जुआ खेलते हुये पाये जाने के कारण पुलिस हिरासत में लिये जाने का समाचार प्रकाशित हुआ है, पुलिस थाना बड़ामलहरा से इस संबंध में कोई जानकारी प्रतिवेदन प्राप्त नही हुआ है।

अतः उपरोक्त संबंध में आप अपना स्पष्टीकरण मेरे समक्ष दिनांक 02.11.2018 तक प्रस्तुत करे। स्पष्टीकरण समय-सीमा में एवं समाधानकारक न होने पर आपकी संविदा सेवा समाप्त की जावेगी। जिसकी जबावदारी स्वयं आपकी होगी।**

From the said notice it is apparent that based upon the newspaper report dated 25.10.2018, a notice has been issued to the petitioner stating that the petitioner was caught gambling. Thereafter, the authority issued the notice stating that he shall submit his clarification before him on 02.11.2018 and, in the event, failure to do so or his clarification not being satisfactorily, his contract employment would be terminated. Thereafter, on the very next day i.e. 30.10.2018 the impugned order was passed, which reads as follow:-

**............................................ जनपद पंचायत में पदस्थ श्री विक्रम सिंह ग्राम रोजगार सहायक ग्राम पंचायत कर्री के विरूद्ध जुआ खेलते पाये जाने पर प्रकरण पंजीबद्ध होने के कारण तत्काल प्रभाव से संविदा सेवा समाप्त की जाती है। यह आदेश तत्काल प्रभावशील होगा। **

This order of termination was passed by the same authority who had issued the notice dated 29.10.2018 who is the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Bada Malhara. As per the impugned order on the very next day of the issuance of the notice, the services of the petitioner was terminated. The petitioner approached this Court by way of the Writ Petition No.26702/2018 against the order dated 30.10.2018 where this Court had dismissed the petition on the ground holding that the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy available to him. This Court, however, gave the petitioner liberty of raising all the points before the Appellate Authority on account of having an efficacious alternate remedy available to him.

Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.3, Chief Executive Officer. After filing of the appeal, as the same was not being considered, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court again by way of W.P.No.9823/2019. The said petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.05.2019 whereby the authority concerned was directed to expedite hearing of the appeal and decided expeditiously but not later than 45 days from the date of communication of the order dated 16.05.2019. Thereafter, the second impugned order dated 14.06.2019 has been passed by which the authority had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by a perfunctory four line order referring to a circular of the Government dated 26.02.2018, according to which an employee who was arrested in a trap case or in any criminal case, his contractual employment could be terminated. Subsequent acquittal by the trial Court would not be a ground for re-employment. Only on that ground the appeal has been dismissed. There was no consideration of the fact that there was a clear cut violation of natural justice and that even before the period set by the CEO for giving the reply expired, in first impugned order, terminating the service was passed. On the question of interim relief, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the same, as according to the State, a second appeal is available to the petitioner and that he may avail the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar Balmik and others reported in 2009 (17) SCC 555. According to the learned counsel for the State that in a similar situation by way of an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow and affirmed by the learned Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in intra-court appeal was set aside by the Supreme Court stating that final relief cannot be granted in an interim stage without permitting the parties to place their respective cases at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. Undoubtedly, this is the cardinal principle while deciding interim relief under writ jurisdiction. However, in a case such as the present one, the facts clearly reveal that a notice was issued seeking the explanation of the petitioner on 29.10.2018 and the date was fixed on 02.11.2018 for the submission of that reply and also where the notice stated that if reply did not come within the stipulated time period all was not satisfactory only than his services would be terminated. However, in contravention of the said time period stipulated in the notice dated 29.10.2018, the same authority on the very next day passed the order of termination without even a passing reference to the time period fixed in the notice.

Under the circumstances, the opportunity of hearing was never granted to the petitioner though his reply was called for and the impugned order has been passed on the very next day. Thereafter, the order passed by the Appellate Authority has also not considered this fact that there was a clear violation of natural justice by the CEO when he passed the order dated 30.10.2018.

Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 30.10.2018 and the dated 14.06.2019 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

As a consequence, the petitioner shall continue on the last post which he had occupied.

Learned counsel for the State is given four weeks' time to file his reply.

List this case on 27.08.2019.

C.C. as per rules.