Vikram Singh Davar vs Panchayat And Social Justice ... on 4 April, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 8]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vikram Singh Davar vs Panchayat And Social Justice ... on 4 April, 2022

By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.09.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by Janpad Panchayat, Jobat, District Alirajpur as affirmed by order 2 dated 27.12.2018 (Anneuxre P/2) passed by Additional District Programme Coordinator, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Alirajpur as further affirmed by order dated 04.09.2019 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore whereby his services as a Gram Rojgar Sahayak have been terminated.

02. As per the petitioner, he was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat Baledi, Tehsil Jobat, District Alirajpur by order dated 12.11.2010 on the basis of merit list prepared during selection process. Later on his services were absorbed as Sahayak Sachiv of Gram Panchayat Baledi. On 11.09.2018, petitioner received a notice alleging that he has included his name and that of his family members in the list to obtain benefits of Chief Minister's Sambal Yojana and has issued Job Card in his name and his family members to obtain benefits of Government scheme. The petitioner submitted his reply on 14.09.2018 on receipt of which the impugned order dated 22.09.2018 was passed by the Janpad Panchayat, Jobat, stating that the reply filed by the petitioner is not satisfactory and that it has been proved that despite being a Rojgar Sahayak he has issued Job Card in his own name and that of his family members by showing them to have worked under the MGNREGA Scheme whereas as per rules a Government Servant is not entitled for issuance of a Job Card in his favour. First Appeal and Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order have been dismissed as stated aforesaid.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are illegal and bad in law as prior to passing of order dated 22.09.2018 no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, no enquiry was held and the order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. The petitioner is permanent resident of Gram Baledi and Job Card was issued in the name of his father prior to his appointment as Gram Rojagar Sahayak and the list being of family members his name was also included in the Job Card which was continuing in respect of benefits of Sambal Yojana. The petitioner 3 has not taken any benefits of the said Yojana. The entire allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and frivolous and contrary to the actual facts of the case.

04. Reply has been filed by the respondents in which it has been submitted that petitioner was issued a show cause notice in view of a complaint having been made against him as regards misuse of Chief Minister's Sambal Yojana in which he had got himself and his family members registered whereas as per rules, a Government Servant is ineligible to obtain benefit of the said scheme. Petitioner had submitted his reply which was not found to be satisfactorily hence his services were terminated which is perfectly legal. As petitioner was appointed on contractual basis show cause notice was issued to him and upon receipt of his reply his services have been terminated which is in accordance with law. Since petitioner was a contractual employee there was no necessity for conducting any enquiry in the matter. In any case a contract of the petitioners has even otherwise come to an end hence he cannot claim reinstatement in service.

05. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

06. The petitioner was appointed as a Gram Rojgar Sahak by order dated 12.11.2010 on contractual basis. Thereafter, his contract was renewed from time to time. Being a contractual employee his services could have been brought to an end either upon completion of his contractual period or by issuing a notice to him in that regard simpliciter. However, his services have been terminated by levelling various allegations against him in the order dated 22.09.2008 which amount to a stigma. For ready reference the order dated 22.09.2018 (Annexure P/1 ) is reproduced hereunder:

dk; kZy ; tuin iap k; r tksc V ftyk vyhjktiqj dzekad@ujsxk@2018&19@2021 tkscV] fnukad 22@09@2018 @@vkns'k@@ dk;kZy; eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh ,oa insu vfr- ftyk dk;Zdze leUo;d eujsxk ftyk vyhjktiqj e-iz- ds i= 4 dzekad@4043@iapk-izdks-@2018&19 vyhjktiqj] fnukad 01-08-2018 ,oa i= dzekad@2347@LFkk@eujsxk@2018 vyhjktiqj] fnukad 11-09-2018 ds funsZ'k vuql kj xzke iapk;r cysMh ds jkstxkj lgk;d Jh fodzeflag Mkoj ds }kjk 'kklu ds funsZ'kks dk ikyu ugh djus ,oa Lo;a ds uke ls tkWc dkMZ tkjh dj fnukad 03-06-2014 ls 08-06-2014 rd 06 fnol dk dk;Z Lo;a }kjk fd;k x;k crk;k gS] eLVj dzekad 1738 fnukad 24-05-2016 ls 29-05-2016 esa budh ifRu }kjk 01 fnol dk dk;Z fd;k x;k gS] eLVj dzekad 1739 fnukad 24-05-2016 ls 29-05-2016 rd budh cgu ds }kjk 01 fnol dk dk;Z fd;k x;k gS] eLVj dzekad 2173 fnukad 06-06-2016 ls 11-06-2016 esa budh ifRu }kjk 01 fnol dk dk;Z fd;k x;k crk;k gS] eLVj dzekad 2465 fnukad 23-12-2015 ls 28-12-2015 rd 06 fnol dk dk;Z budh ifRu }kjk fd;k x;k gS] eLVj dzekad 2168 fnukad 06-06-2016 ls 12-06-2016 rd budh cgu }kjk 06 fnol dk dk;Z fd;k gS] eLVj dzekad 1393 fnukad 11-05-2016 ls 16-05-2016 rd 06 fnol dk dk;Z budh cgu }kjk fd;k x;k gS] eLVj dzekad 735 fnukad 23-04-2016 ls 28-04-2016 budh cgu ds }kjk 06 fnol dk dk;Z fd;k x;k gS] eLVj dzekad 1086 fnukad 03-05-2016 ls 08-05-2016 rd budh cgu }kjk 06 fnol dk dk;Z fd;k x;k gS] eLVj dzekad 1083 fnukad 03-05-2016 ls 08-05-2016 rd budh cgu ds }kjk 06 fnol dk dk;Z fd;k x;k gS] eLVj dzekad 2494 fnukad 14-06-2016 ls 19-06-2016 rd budh cgu ,oa ifRu }kjk 06&06 fnol dk dk;Z fd;k x;k gS] eLVj dzekad 736 fnukad 23-04-2016 ls 28-04-2016 rd budh ifRu }kjk 06 fnol dk dk;Z fd;k x;k gS] eLVj dzekad 3078 fnukad 05-07-2016 ls 10-07-2016 rd 06 fnol dk dk;Z budh ifRu }kjk fd;k x;k gS] eLVj dzekad 1389 fnukad 11-05-2016 ls 16-05-2016 rd 06 fnol dk dk;Z budh ifRu }kjk fd;k x;k gS ,oa buds }kjk eq[;ea=h lacay ;kstuk esa jkstxkj lgk;d gksrs gq, Hkh viuk Lo;a dk vksj ifjokj dk iath;u fd;k x;k tks dh 'kklu ds fu;eksa ds fo:) gSA eq[;ea=h lacay ;kstuk ds Lo?kks"k.kk i= ij funsZ'k gS fd tks 'kkldh; lsok esa gS] vk;dj nkrk gS ;k Hkqfe vf/kd gS budk bl ;kstuk esa iath;u ugh fd;k tkuk gSA dk;kZy; }kjk] ofj"B dk;kZy; }kjk ,oa izR ;sd lkIrkfgd cSBd es Hkh funsZ'k fn;k x;k gS fd ,sl s O;fDr;ksa dk iath;u ugh fd;k tkuk gSA blds ckn Hkh buds }kjk 'kkldh; ykHk ysus gsrq mDr iath;u tkucq> dj fd;k x;k gSA buds }kjk jkstxkj lgk;d gksrs gq, Hkh vius Lo;a ds uke ij tkWc dkMZ tkjh fd;k x;k ,oa Lo;a ds }kjk vksj ifjokj ds }kjk ujsxk ds rgr dk;Z fd;k x;k n'kkZ; k x;kA buds }kjk vius Lo;a ds uke ls tkWc dkMZ vkt fnukad rd tkjh dj j[kk gS] tcdh fu;ekuql kj 'kkldh; lsod dks tkWc dkMZ tkjh djus dh vuqefr ugh gSA buds }kjk dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= dk tokc fn;k x;k tks dh larks"kizn ugh gSA bl dkj.k ls e/;izns'k jkt jkstxkj xkjaVh vf/kfu;e ds rgr budk vuqca/ k rRdky izH kko ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA mDRk vkns'k rRdky izH kkof'ky gksxkA

07. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid order, it is apparent that during his period of service serious allegations were levelled against the petitioners.

The petitioner was asked to show cause but he could not furnish a satisfactory reply. The order also states that petitioner has committed gross illegality in getting a job card issued in the name of himself and his family members by showing them of working Âunder MGNREGA Scheme whereas a Government employee was not entitled for a Job Card. In the return which has been filed by the respondents also it has been stated that there were serious allegations against the petitioner as regards the irregularities committed by him as a consequence of which he was asked to show cause but his reply was not found satisfactorily.

08. Thus, from a consideration of the entire factual matrix, there cannot 5 be any doubt that the order of termination of the petitioner is stigmatic and cannot be regarded as a termination simpliciter. The order clearly reveals that a stigma has been cast upon the petitioner which shall have a direct impact upon his future prospects. As the impugned order amounts to a stigma the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without holding an enquiry as has been laid down by this Court in Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal and others, 2001 (3) M.P.L.J., 616 and in Jitendra Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2008 (4) M.P.L.J. 670. Therein it has categorically been held that even the services of a contractual employee cannot be terminated without conducting regular enquiry if the order amounts to a stigma. It is apparent that order dated 22.09.2018 is stigmatic in nature, the same having been passed without conducting regular enquiry hence cannot be sustained. The first as well as the second appellate authority have also not at all adverted themselves to this aspect of the matter.

09. As a result, the impugned orders dated 22.09.2018 (Annexure P/1), 27.12.2018 (Annexure P/2) and 04.09.2019 (Annexure P/3) are hereby set aside and respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in services with 50% back wages within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. Accordingly the writ petition stands allowed to the extent herein above indicated.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE jyoti Digitally signed by JYOTI CHOURASIA Date: 2022.04.26 16:52:38 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court