Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajdev Sharma vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2017
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav
:: 1 ::
WP-2084-2009 & WP.293-2009
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV
Writ Petition No.2084/2009
Rajdev Sharma
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others.
***************
Shri D.K. Katare, learned counsel for petitioner.
Smt. Nidhi Patanakar, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
***************
Writ Petition No.293/2009
Sanjay Dhondy
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others.
***************
Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Smt. Nidhi Patankar, learned Government Advocate
for respondent No.1 and 2/State.
Shri D.K. Katare, learned counsel for respondent
No.3.
***************
:: 2 ::
WP-2084-2009 & WP.293-2009
ORDER
(20/12/2017) This order shall govern the disposal of Writ Petition No.2084/2009 and Writ Petition No.293/2009.
Writ Petition No.2084/2009
(Rajdev Sharma Vs.State of M.P. & Others)
2. Petitioner, by way of present petition, seeks following reliefs:
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed with costs by issuance of writ, order or direction quashing the order Annexure P/1 and P/1-A and the petitioner is permanent employee, he cannot be removed from service after lapse of 13 years service and any other relief in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the facts and circumstances of this case, kindly be awarded."
3. To substantiate the claim, learned counsel for the petitioner has exhaustively argued the matter on merit to bring home the submissions that no action can be taken against the petitioner after more than a decade of his initial appointment when the petitioner has not obtained the appointment on the basis of alleged mis-representation of forged documents.
:: 3 ::
WP-2084-2009 & WP.293-2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions in Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. and others [(2007) 8 SCC 644], Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others vs. Abahi Kumar and Others (2001) 3 SCC 328, Rakesh Kumar Pradhan Vs. State of M.P. and others [1998 (2) JLJ 284], Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. the State of Punjab (1991) Suppl. 1 SCC 504, Mithilesh Kumar Vs. Brahattakar Krishi Saakh Sahakari Samiti Mydt., Atari Khejda [2010(3) MPLJ 242], Raiwad Manoj Kumar Nivruttirao V. State of Maharashtra [2012(I) MPWN 33].
4. However, it is borne out from the record that the show cause notice dated 20.04.2006 was challenged by the petitioner vide Writ Petition No.2166/2006(S). The said petition was disposed of on 27.10.2006 in the following terms:-
"That the respondents are free to take action against the petitioner in pursuance to the show cause notice. Annexure P/1 after receiving reply and after following proper procedure. It is made clear that respondents shall not (sic:be) influenced by the order Annexure P/17 and that order be treated as non-existent and they shall decide the matter without prejudice or without any ill will against the petitioner."
:: 4 ::
WP-2084-2009 & WP.293-2009
5. Admittedly, the said order has been allowed to attain finality. In view whereof, the challenge to Annexure P/1 cannot be carried forward, therefore, the relief sought qua order dated 20.4.2006 stands rejected.
6. As regard to challenge to communication dated 16.03.2009 Annexure P/1-A, as rightly contended by learned Government Advocate that the said communication is in consonance with the order passed in Writ Petition No.2166/2006(S). The communication Annexure P/1-A is self-explanatory and is reproduced for ready reference:
^^dk;kZy; ifjogu vk;qDr] e/;izns'k] Xokfy;j Øekad@1847@LFkk@Vhlh@2009 Xokfy;j] fnukad 16-3-09 izfr] Jh jktnso 'kEkkZ Lkgk-oxZ&3] ftyk ifjogu dk;kZy;
'kktkiqj fo"k;%& lh/kh Hkjrh ds vUrxZr 'kkjhfjd :i ls fodykax ,oa ewd cf/kj ds vkjf{kr in ij fodykaxrk fu/kkZfjr izfr'kr ls de gksus o vkjf{kr in ij xyr rjhds ls fu;qfDr izkIr djus ds laca/k esa dkj.k crkvks lwpuk&i=A lanHkZ%& dk;kZy;hu i= Øekad 103@LFkk-@Vh-lh-@2006 Xokfy;j fnukad 20-04- 2006 fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd bl dk;kZy; }kjk tkjh dkj.k crkvks uksfVl i= :: 5 ::
WP-2084-2009 & WP.293-2009 Øekad 103 fnukad 20-04-2006 dh Nk;k izfr HksTkdj funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd dkj.k crkvks uksfVl mYYksf[kr fcUnqvksa dk mRrj rRdky 7 fnol ds vUnj bl dk;kZy; dks izLrqr djsA mRrj izkIr u gksus dh n'kk esa vkids izdj.k esa ,d i{kh; fu.kZ; fy;k tkosxkA ¼ifjogu vk;qDr }kjk vknsf'kr½ mi ifjogu vk;qDr ¼iz'kk-½ e/; izns'k i`-Ø-@ @LFkk@Vh-lh-@2009 Xokfy;j] fnukad izfrfyfi% ftyk ifjogu vf/kdkjh] jktx<@'kktkiqj e/; izns'k dh vksj mijksDrkuqlkj ,d izfr vkidh vksj Hkstdj ys[k gS fd lacaf/kr dk rkehy djkdj ikorh bl dk;kZy; dks 'kh?kz HkstsA mi ifjogu vk;qDr ¼iz'kk-½ e/; izns'k
7. Evident, it is from the communication that the same is not a fresh notice but the copy of earlier notice dated 20.04.2006 has been tendered to petition to carry forward the direction in Writ Petition No.2166/2006(s). Thus, it is against the same show-
cause notice which was upheld in Writ Petition No.2166/2006(s), the petitioner has filed this petition.
8. It has been held in Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28]:
"14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a :: 6 ::
WP-2084-2009 & WP.293-2009 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 affects 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 petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance."
9. In the case at hand, since the petitioner has questioned the show-cause notice, this Court is not inclined to cause any interference, in view of law laid down in the case of Kunisetty Satyanarayana (Supra). Since the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, petition fails and is dismissed.
10. Interim order stands vacated. All interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
11. The respondents are directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of three months.
:: 7 ::
WP-2084-2009 & WP.293-2009
12. It is expected of the petitioner that he shall co- operate in the enquiry and the authorities would be at liberty to pass reasoned order, in accordance with law. No costs.
WP.293.2009 (Sanjay Dhondy Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) In view of the order passed in Writ Petition No.2084/2009, no further order is warranted in this Writ Petition.
2. Petition (WP.293/2009) stands disposed of.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE (20/12/2017) pwn* Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR PAWAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, KUMAR 2.5.4.20=baa18e83a2af7a1611e 0bb9811a10869c6907cfbb375a 7a236a25ad39f3a2027, cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2017.12.23 12:41:50 -08'00'