SANTOSH KUMAR SIHARE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the order dated 19.03.2020 vide P/1 by which the charge on the post of CMO Municipal Council Joura District Morena is directed to be handed over to Shri Balkishan Gourav/respondent No.2 herein, as a result of which the petitioner who was holding this post on officiating/in-charge basis has been relegated to his substantive post of Revenue Sub-inspector.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Raghuvanshi submits that the petitioner vide P/2 was entrusted with officiate as CMO Municipal Council Joura, the post on which he joined on 22.06.2019. However, vide Annxure P/4 dated 22.06.2019, Annexure P/2 was cancelled impelling petitioner to prefer WP.12388/2019 which was allowed vide order dated 15.07.2019. This order of the Single Bench was not disturbed by the Division Bench while disposing of WA No.1417/19 as infructuous on 23.09.2019. It is submitted that the order of learned Single Judge in WP No. 12388/19 which had the stamp of approval of the Division Bench by implication, upheld the contention of the petitioner that the order of being posted as officiating CMO which was executed on 22.06.2019 by the petitioner could not have been cancelled. It is submitted that despite securing a judicial order in its favour, the official respondent by exercise of malice passed Annexure P/1 which is politically motivated in view of Annexure P/10 and P/11 both dated 12.02.2020 which are recommendatory letters of political functionaries asking the decision making authority to remove the petitioner from the post of CMO, Municipal Council Joura. In this factual background, the impugned order Annexure P/1 is assailed.

(3.) The question that falls for consideration herein is as to whether the ground of mala fide can be successfully raised by a person who otherwise does not have any vested right to the cause raised in the absence of the ground of mala fide.