Raghunandan Nagar vs State Of M.P. And Others

In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19

outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

For the nature of the order, which this Court proposes to pass, the notices are not being issued to the respondents.

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dt.15.06.2020

passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the services of the petitioner, who is working as Samvida Shala Shikshak (Grade III) - Sahayak Adhyapak,

has been dismissed w.e.f. 05.10.2019.

The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III vide order

dt.05.07.2013. On completion of three years' contract period, the services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Adhyapak Cadre on the post of

Sahayak Adhyapak w.e.f. 08.07.2016. Thereafter, a false criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 294, 506B and 307 read

with Section 34 of IPC, wherein the petitioner was convicted for a period of three years under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. Being

aggrieved, the petitioner filed Cr.A.No.No.8853/2019 before this Court, wherein the sentence was suspended. However, by impugned order

dt.15.06.2020 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground of conviction only relying on the circular dt.08.02.1999.

Challenging the impugned order dt.15.06.2020 (Annexure P/1), the present Writ Petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that the impugned order dt.15.06.2020 (Annexure P/1) is without jurisdiction as the same has been

passed by the District Education Officer, whereas the competent authority is the Collector/Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat. Secondly, it is

contended that the proceedings for dismissal have been initiated under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

1966 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'CCA Rules') invoking Rule 10 (9) of the Rules of 1966, which could not have been done since the

petitioner is employee of of the Panchayat, whereas the action ought to have been taken under Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and

Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Panchayat Rules'). Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the circular

which the respondents relies, relates to the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act only, as such the same is not applicable in the facts and

circumstances of the present case. Fourthly, he contended that the impugned order has been passed on 15.06.2020 but the petitioner could not have

been terminated with retrospective effect w.e.f. 05.10.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of

this Court in W.A.No.1487/2013 â€" Jugal Kishore Chaurasia Vs. State of M.P. and others, wherein the ratio regarding applicability of the CCA

Rules vis-a-vis Panchayat Rules was considered. Relevant portion of the aforesaid order reads as under :-

“The grievance before the learned single Judge was that the Collector has invoked powers under the Rules of 1966 which had no application to the case on hand.

In the present case, however, Rules of 1999, titled as the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 were applicable. In other words, the

Collector exercised the power to suspend the appellant by invoking wrong provision and thus the order was without jurisdiction. Although the learned Single Judge

accepted this plea of the appellant, went on to observe that the Collector in any case had powers under rule 4(1) of the 1999 Rules and for which reason it is not an

order passed without jurisdiction by the Collector. In our opinion, this approach cannot be countenanced, For, the Collector has consciously exercised powers under

the Rules of 1966. If those rules had no application to the case on hand, the exercise of that power would obviously become without jurisdiction. The fact that the

Collector could have exercised power under rule 4 of the Rules of 1999, cannot be the basis to justify invocation of wrong authority. It will be a different matter if the

Collector passes a fresh order by exercising powers under just provisions, but the suspension order impugned in the writ petition cannot stand the test of judicial

scrutiny.

We, therefore, set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge as also the impugned suspension order to the writ petition dated 5th April, 2012 while making it clear

that the Collector is free to exercise powers under applicable provisions of law and proceed in the matter in accordance with the law.

We are informed that the charge sheet has already been served on the appellant in relation to the acts of commission and omission for which disciplinary inquiry has

been constituted. In that case, the competent Authority may consider of expediting the inquiry and take it to its logical end expeditiously.

Appeal disposed of accordingly.â€​

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that though the impugned order has been passed under the

CCA Rules but the respondents authorities are having power under Rule 4 (1) of the Panchayat Rules, for which reason it is not an order passed

without jurisdiction. On such ground he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the impugned order has been passed under the wrong provision,

this Court is not inclined to issue notices to the respondents but to set aside the impugned order with the liberty to the respondents to pass appropriate

order in accordance with law under the correct provisions of law i.e. Panchayat Rules, if so advised.

Accordingly, the impugned order dt.15.06.2020 (Annexure P/1) is set aside with liberty to the competent authority to exercise the powers as applicable

under the provisions of law and to proceed in the matter in accordance with law, if so advised. As a consequence, the petitioner is entitled for

reinstatement forthwith.

Accordingly the petition is disposed of finally with the aforesaid liberty.