Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravikant Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-6979-2014
sh
(RAVIKANT DUBEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
e
ad
Gwalior, Dated : 04-12-2017
Shri Nirmal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Pr
Shri Kamal Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
a hy Petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the District Women Empowerment Officer, Distt. Morena, whereby ad services of the petitioner have been dispensed with on the ground that M petitioner had given an incorrect affidavit in terms of GAD circular dated 24.11.2012.
of Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that fact of the matter is that petitioner had duly disclosed pendency of a criminal rt case and his acquittal in an earlier criminal case, in Annexure P/5, ou which is verification form dated 10.9.2014. He further submits that in C his affidavit as is contained in Annexure P/8 para 4, he had h categorically disclosed pendency of criminal case No.558/13 being ig investigated by the Additional S.P., Morena. He submits that this H affidavit was furnished on 9.7.2013 and the final report contained in Annexure P/9 was presented to the Court in February, 2014, therefore, there is no suppression of any information in the affidavit, Annexure P/8, and the matter was still under investigation when he had submitted his affidavit as is contained in Annexure P/8. Thereafter, police had filed Challan in February, 2014 and thus when he had submitted his verification form, he had disclosed this fact that Challan has been filed by the police and matter is pending before the CJM, Morena.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the State on the other hand submits that they had received an intimation about suppression of information as is contained in report filed by Superintendent of Police Distt. Morena dated 17.11.2014 and in terms of such report submitted by sh Superintendent of Police, Morena, impugned order has been passed.
e The fact of the matter is that impugned order bears a date 13.10.2014, ad whereas communication made by the Superintendent of Police Distt.
Pr Morena, is dated 17.11.2014, therefore, it is apparent that respondents could not have relied on a document subsequent to passing of the a impugned order. It is apparent from the documents on record that hy petitioner had filed an affidavit in July, 2013 in which he had ad disclosed the fact of pendency of a criminal investigation. Challan was filed in February, 2014, and therefore, he had disclosed about this M fact in the verification form. Thus, the allegation of suppression of of material fact is not made out. Similarly, the impugned order is punitive in nature inasmuch as it is mentioned that his work was not rt found to be satisfactory, and therefore, his services are dispensed ou with. Before recording a finding that work was not satisfactory, petitioner was required to be given an opportunity of hearing, and C therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be removal h simpliciter, but it is a stigmatic order and before passing any stigmatic ig order, the authorities were obliged to afford an opportunity of hearing H to the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order, Annexure P/1, is set aside, however, a liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to grant an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking any action in regard to the petitioner.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Digitally signed by MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Date: 2017.12.06 10:32:52 +05'30' H ig h ms/-
C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e sh