Madhya Pradesh High Court
G.L.C.Parwani vs State Of M.P. on 3 July, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29283
1 WP-22798-2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 3 rd OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 22798 of 2003
G.L.C.PARWANI
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Awadhesh Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioner .
Shri Hitendra Singh - GA for the State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the original petitioner namely Gehimal Lal Chand Parwani (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), who died during pendency of this petition and vide order dated 28.8.2023, his LRs have been brought on record.
2 . This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash orders Annexure-A19 dated 8.1.1988 and other in appeal dated 7.4.1991 Annex-A21 by appropriate writ or order or direction being in violation of all cannons of natural justice and fair play besides being in violation of the directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the entire departmental enquiry proceedings culminating Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 07-07-2025 17:54:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29283 2 WP-22798-2003 into dismissal of the applicant as being void, illegal and vitiated in law.
(iii) After quashing Annexures-A19 and A21, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to treat the applicant to have been reinstated in service and to further direct that the applicant be paid his salary, arrears thereof, seniority and declare that the applicant retired from service in normal course with entitlement for pension, gratuity, etc. etc. in accordance with law.
(iv) The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to afford a full opportunity to the applicant before passing any punitive order against him in the matter of enquiry initiated against him.
(v) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction thought just and proper be also issued with all service benefits, alongwith costs of these proceedings.
3 . The facts of the case, as detailed in the petition, reveal that the petitioner was working as Peon in the Printing and Stationary Department. He was promoted as Lower Division Clerk on 17.4.1965. The petitioner was to be superannuated on 13.7.1990. However, on 13.9.1986, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner for unauthorisedly remaining absent from the duty since 20.1.1986. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer called upon the petitioner to appear and defend his case. As the petitioner was suffering from multiple ailments as he was a patient of hypertension and Arthritis, he could not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Consequently, an order of imposing penalty of removal from service was Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 07-07-2025 17:54:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29283 3 WP-22798-2003 passed against the petitioner. The said order was assailed by the petitioner by filing an appeal, which has also been dismissed vide impugned order. Hence, this petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this petition is being pressed on the grounds that firstly, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing by the Enquiry Officer and secondly, the petitioner was not supplied with the charge-sheet. It is contended that the petitioner was indisposed and therefore, he was not in a position to appear before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has failed to appreciate that the petitioner had submitted an application for medical leave on 22.1.1986. It is also contended that on account of prolong and continuous illness, the petitioner was not in a position to attend the offence and therefore, the impugned order could not have been passed.
5. The counsel for the State has opposed the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that due opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend him, despite that the petitioner did not enter his appearance before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report in which the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved, therefore, the impugned order has rightly be passed on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Hence, no interference is warranted in this petition.
6. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 7 . Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, it reflects that the petitioner was Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 07-07-2025 17:54:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29283 4 WP-22798-2003 issued a charge-sheet in which following charge was levelled:-
"यह क ी गेह मल पारवानी, िन न ण े ी िल पक ने दनांक 20-1-86 से वे छापूवक एवं अनिधकृ त प से अपने काय से अनुप थत रहकर सहायक िनयं क, लेखन साम ी तथा काशन भंडार, भोपाल के आदे श क अवहे लना कर वे छाचा रता एवं अनुशासनह नता दिशत क 8 . On perusal of the aforesaid, it reflects that the charge against the petitioner was that he unauthorisedly remained absent from the duty from 20.1.1986 onwards and therefore, therefore, there was violation of the order passed by the Assistant Controller. The petitioner was issued notices by the Enquiry Officer, despite that the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report, in which the charge levelled against the petitioner was found to be proved. The said enquiry report was also forwarded to the petitioner. The petitioner did not submit any response and accordingly the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of removal of service against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of removal, which has also been dismissed vide impugned order.
9 . In order to deal with the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, if the impugned order and record are perused, it would reveal that the petitioner was issued notice by the Enquiry Officer to appear before him and even the petitioner himself has admitted this fact in paragraph 6.5 of the petition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend himself. Paragraph 2 of the enquiry report deals with the opportunities which were granted to the petitioner to defend himself. It is Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 07-07-2025 17:54:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29283
5 WP-22798-2003 also important to take note of the appeal memo in which no stand was taken by the petitioner that an opportunity of hearing was not afforded to him during departmental enquiry. It was the case of the petitioner that he was not served with the enquiry report. The appeal memo nowhere reflects that the petitioner had taken the stand that enquiry report was not supplied to him.
10. Considering the aforesaid, in the considered view of this Court, none of eventualities exist in the present case, which have been discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, so as to warrant interference with the impugned order.
11. Consequently, the petition, being devoid of the merits, is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE PB Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 07-07-2025 17:54:30