Madhya Pradesh High Court
Awadhlal Kewat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 June, 2015
WP-9244-2015
(AWADHLAL KEWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
29-06-2015
Shri D.K Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order
dated 16.06.2015 by which the Authority concerned has conducted
an enquiry against the orders of regularization passed by one Shri
L.R. Mina erstwhile Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development
Department, Sidhi and on finding that the orders passed by him
were illegal and had been passed by not following the procedure
prescribed by law and without authority of law, has cancelled the
orders of regularization of several persons including the petitioner
and have directed that the persons shall be treated to be daily
wagers.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice to
the petitioner and without examining the fact as to whether the
petitioner was infact eligible for being granted benefit of
regularization under the circular of State Government dated
16.05.2007.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed
that the authorities have not levelled any allegation against the
petitioner, but have infact cancelled the orders of regularization on
account of the illegalities committed by Shri L. R. Mina the then
Assistant Commissioner.
A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Committee for
regularization, constituted by Shri L.R. Mina the erstwhile Assistant
Commissioner, was not in accordance with law and the orders
passed by him were without jurisdiction and it is in such
circumstances the orders have been cancelled. The order also
indicates that the orders of regularization were contrary to the
circular dated 16.5.2007 which was issued pursuant to the
decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others,
(2006) 4 SCC 1.
It is apparent from a perusal of the impugned order that the
respondent authorities have got a detailed enquiry conducted in
the matter against Shri L. R. Mina and by recording a finding that he has committed illegalities and has exceeded his authority while passing the orders of regularization, have proceeded to cancel all the orders passed by him and in such circumstances as the authorities have found that illegalities have been committed by Shri L. R. Mina, no useful purpose would, in any case, have been served in case a show cause notice would have been issued to the petitioner as he would have and is in no position to justify or reply to the illegalities that have been committed by Shri L. R. Mina. In other words, issuance of a notice would have been a useless formality and futile exercise.
The Supreme Court in the cases of Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 105, Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India and others, (2007) 4 SCC 54, State of Manipur and others vs. Y. Token Singh and others, (2007) 5 SCC 65 and Haryana Financial Corporation and Another vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, (2008) 9 SCC 31 and Hitendra Singh S/0 Bhupendra Singh and others Vs. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth by Registrar and others, (2014) 8 SCC 369 as well as of this court in the case of Munna Lal Yadav vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour and another, 2006 (3) MPHT 39, has held that in such circumstances, an individual employee concerned is not required to be given show cause notice as the action is being taken on account of illegality committed by the appointing authority and lack of jurisdiction in such authority to pass the orders. The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court have been rendered after the decision of this Court by Annexure P-8.
In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, I do not find any case to grant ad interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition moreso as the present case is one where glaring and apparent illegalities have been committed by the officer issuing the order and as the petitioner can be adequately compensated in case the petition is ultimately allowed. It is, however, made clear that the authorities are not prevented or prohibited from reconsidering the case of the petitioner for regularization on their own or on the application of the petitioner in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and in accordance with the circular issued pursuant thereto.
However, as it is pointed out that a writ appeal which has been registered as W.A. No. 128/2015 against the interim order passed by the authority dated 21.01.2015 is pending before this court, issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within a week. (RAVI SHANKAR JHA) JUDGE