MAHENDRA KORI Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These intra Court appeals arise out of common order dtd. 4/4/2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9376 of 2014 and Writ Petition No.8226 of 2017, whereby the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed. Since, the learned Single Judge has taken the facts from Writ Petition No.8226 of 2017, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Writ Appeal No.1091/2019 which arise from the said Writ Petition.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that vide order dtd. 6/11/2006, the appellant was appointed as Sub Engineer on contract basis for a period of 1 year, subject to the condition of extension of the contract. The appellant was not in good relation with respondent No.4. On account of the conduct of respondent No.4, the appellant had to file a private complaint under Sec. 200 of the Cr.P.C for various offences before the competent Court. According to appellant, at the behest of respondent No.4, some false grounds were created and the services of the appellant were terminated vide order dtd. 9/4/2014. Against the said order, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner, but the same was also dismissed on 9/5/2014, therefore, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.9376/2014, where vide order dtd. 17/9/2014, the operation of the termination order dtd. 9/4/2014 was stayed by this Court. By impugned common order Writ Petition No.9376 of 2014 has also been dismissed which is subject matter of Writ Appeal No.1092 of 2019.

(3.) It is the case of the appellant that respondent No.2 - Collector issued another show cause notice dtd. 18/3/2015 to the appellant to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground that he had obtained less marks in the ACR. The appellant submitted his reply on 23/3/2015, whereby, a specific stand was taken that the ACR written by the respondent No.4 was biased. The appellant filed Writ Petition No.4304 of 2015 before this Court challenging the show cause notice dtd. 18/3/2015. However, vide order dtd. 27/3/2015, the writ petition was disposed off with a direction to the concerned authority to consider the reply of the appellant before passing any order. The services of the appellant were terminated on 30/5/2015 on the ground that his reply was not found satisfactory. The appellant challenged the said order in Writ Petition No.8741/2015 which was disposed off vide order dtd. 1/7/2015 with a direction to file application before the Collector, who was directed to consider and decide the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the application, in accordance with law. The Collector vide order dtd. 2/3/2016 decided the application of the appellant and passed the order, whereby, the earlier order of termination dtd. 30/5/2015 has been affirmed and the application/representation of the appellant was not found to be satisfactory. The appellant, therefore, challenged the order dtd. 30/5/2015 (Annexure P/2) and 2/3/2016 (Annexure P/1) with the further direction to the respondents to reinstate the appellant in services with all consequential benefits before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, therefore, the appellant has filed the present appeal.