Hariprasad Jatav vs State Of M.P. & Another

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this petition has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard. Challenge is being made to the issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner by Incompetent Authority. It is submitted that the petitioner was an employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, Guna, District Guna. He was substantially holding the post of Revenue Sub-Inspector. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector and subsequently vide order dated 19.05.2015, he was given current charge of C.M.O. in Nagar Palika Parishad, Aron. Vide order dated 29.06.2015, he has been transferred as Incharge CMO in Nagar Palika Parishad, Sahdora and presently he is working as Incharge Chief Municipal Officer, Aron. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act.

Sub-clause 4 of Section 94 of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Rules thereof are applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Rules i.e. the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Karamchari Bharti Evam Seva Sharte Niyam 1968 (for brevity "Rules, 1968"), are applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioners parent department is Municipality i.e. he was born in the cadre of Municipality and his services are governed by the provisions of Rules, 1968, therefore, in terms of Rule 53 of Rules, 1968, the respondent No. 2 has no legal authority to issue charge-sheet to the petitioner. It is submitted that in identical circumstances, this Court has already entertained the issue and has decided the same in W.P.No.5966/2017, W.P.No.5708/2017 and W.P.No.15706/19 and has quashed the charge sheets in identical circumstances. It is held by the Hon'ble Court that even the charges which have been lebelled related to period when the petitioner is working as Officiating Chief Municipal Officer, inspite of this, because he belongs to the cadre of Municipal employee and he is not employee of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Services, therefore, the charge sheet issued by the Additional Director/Additional Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development was unsustainable and was quashed by this Court. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is exactly identical to that which has been decided by the Court in the aforesaid writ petitions.

The law laid down in the aforesaid writ petitions is fully applicable to the case of petitioner also. He has prayed for the similar relief to the granted to him and has prayed for quashment of the impugned charge sheet.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State was granted an opportunity to go through the orders passed in the writ petitions and ascertain that whether the petitioner's case is fully covered by the orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions. But he fairly submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the aforesaid judgments. It is argued that but as the issuance of charge sheet is in question, the petitioner has a remedy of filing a reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet as a notice has already been issued to him, therefore, in such circumstances, entertaining the writ petition is unwarranted, but he fairly submits that the orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions are governing the case of the petitioner also.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the controversy is no more res-integra and has been settled by the Court in W.P.No.5699/2017 as an identical petition vide order dated 23.02.2018, this Court deems it appropriate to apply the similar principle to the present case also. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 23.02.2018 passed in W.P.5699/2017. The principle laid down in the aforesaid shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of the petitioner also. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

E-copy of this order be provided to the petitioner and it is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.