Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deep Narayan Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2019
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.9100/2019
(Deep Narayan Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. & ors.)
Jabalpur, Dated :15.05.2019
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rohit Saugaura, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
The petitioner, who was working as Gram Rojgar Sahayak is aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2019, passed by respondent No.3, Chief Executive Officer, whereby his service has been terminated on the ground that he has committed financial irregularities and embezzlement while executing various works allotted to him.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned is arbitrary and passed without application of mind. It is further urged that the fact finding equiry has been conducted without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has stated that the show cause notice was issued to 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.9100/2019 (Deep Narayan Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) the petitioner number of times and after considering his reply, the order impugned was passed. It is further stated that the order impugned is appealable, as per the circular No.3728/MREGS/MP/Esstt./NR-2/17 dated 03.06.2017 issued by the State Government, which provides for filing of first appeal as well as second appeal. It is stated that once the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, he must resort to the same and cannot approach this Court directly bypassing the alternative efficacious remedy.
From perusal of the impugned order dated 15.04.2019, it is seen that the same is passed by Chief Executive Officer, Jandpad Panchayat. The order itself mentions that the petitioner can file a first appeal within 30 days before the Chief Executive Officer/Additional District Programme Co-ordinator, Zila Panchayat.
Since an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, the petitioner must resort to such remedy where the disputed questions of facts can be decided. 3
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.9100/2019 (Deep Narayan Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) In the case of Poonam Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2016 (2) SCC 779, the Supreme Court has held that the principle of Audi Alteram Partem has its own sanctity but the said principle of natural justice is not always put in strait jacket formula. That apart, a person or an authority must have a legal right or right in law to defend or assail. Natural justice is not an unruly horse. Its applicability has to be adjudged regard being had to the effect and impact of the order and the person who claims to be affected and that is where the concept of necessary party become significant. This aspect has also been taken care of by Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Vikas Gupta Vs. Sm. Meera Singh and others 2007(2) EFR 46.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case for interference is made out. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy of first appeal/second appeal as available to him, which if preferred by the petitioner, shall be heard and decided on merits as per law.
4
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.9100/2019 (Deep Narayan Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. & ors.) With the aforesaid liberty and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(Nandita Dubey) Judge gn Digitally signed by GEETHA NAIR Date: 2019.05.16 16:15:53 +05'30'