MEERA KUSHWAH Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid writ petitions. Since similar point is involved in all these matters, matters were analogously heard with consent and are decided by this common order.

(2.) THE facts are taken from Writ Petition No.6417/2010 (Smt. Meera Kushwah vs. State of MP and ors.). It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was selected as Female Health Worker (ANM) in the year 1992 - 93. The certificate of clearing the examination of ANM is annexed as Annexure P/2. The petitioner was appointed as ANM by order dated 3.4.1996 (Annexure P/3). It is contended that on the basis of some anonymous complaint, the Collector Sheopur directed the petitioner to submit all relevant documents relating to her educational qualification. Pursuant to this letter of Collector dated 31.5.2005 (Annexure P/4), the petitioner submitted her relevant documents in original by Annexure P/5. It is contended by Shri Pawan Dwivedi that for about five years no action was taken by the respondents. Suddenly by order dated 5.6.2010, a direction was issued to stop salary of the petitioner and discontinue her. This order dated 5.6.2010 was put to test before this Court in Writ Petition No. 3548/2010. However, during pendency of said case, the termination order dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P/1) was passed and, therefore, earlier petition was withdrawn with liberty to assail the termination order.

(3.) THE bone of contention of Shri Dwivedi is that the petitioners are substantively holding the relevant post. They are permanent employees. The impugned order shows that their services are terminated because of submission of forged mark sheet. It is urged that this allegation amounts to misconduct and to establish the misconduct on the part of the petitioner, it was obligatory on the part of respondents to conduct an enquiry in consonance with rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity, the 'CCA Rules'). The order impugned is called in question on the ground that no departmental enquiry was conducted and without following the principles of natural justice, the petitioner's services were terminated.