JABALPUR, India, June 17 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on May 14:

1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief(s):

"(i) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned orders dt.07.08.2018 (Ann.P/2) passed by Respondent No.3. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak Palaycha, Janpad Panchayat Bhitarvar, District Gwalior with all consequential benefits. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner along with cost of the petition."

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, Gram Panchayat Palaycha, Janpad Panchayat Bhitarwar, District Gwalior vide order dated 05.11.2012. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.08.2018, the services of petitioner were terminated on the ground that petitioner had allegedly committed an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the respondents without giving any opportunity of hearing to petitioner and even no show-cause notice was issued. Thus, the principles of natural justice have not been complied with by the respondents. It is further submitted that merely on the basis of registration of an FIR, the services of petitioner could not have been terminated. It is further submitted that as per judgment dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge and First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Special Case No. 9/18, the petitioner has already been acquitted It is further submitted that as per Clause 15 of the appointment order, if a candidate is found involved in a criminal case, the services of such candidate can be terminated only after giving proper opportunity of hearing. However, without complying with Clause 15 of appointment order, the services of petitioner have been terminated by the respondents. It is further submitted that the impugned order is stigmatic in nature and such a stigmatic order cannot be passed without conducting a regular departmental enquiry. It is further submitted that mere registration of an FIR cannot be a ground for termination of service rather the services could only have been terminated if the competent Court had convicted the petitioner in the criminal case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the criminal case arising out of said FIR. It is further submitted that similarly situated persons, who were appointed along with the petitioner are still continuing in service and the services of petitioner alone have been terminated merely on the basis of registration of the FIR. It is submitted that since similarly situated persons are still working, the petitioner is also entitled to reinstatement, even though the contractual period of the petitioner has already expired.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 3 opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner. It is further submitted that as per the guidelines issued for appointment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, the services of petitioner could be terminated on the basis of registration of an FIR. It is further submitted that on 28.11.2015, an FIR was registered against petitioner in relation to an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which entitled respondent No. 3 to terminate the services of the petitioner.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/storage/upload/gwalior/MPHCGWL/2018/WP/20273/WP_20273_2018_FinalOrder_14-05-2026.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.