DINESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dated 25.8.2015 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.3374/2015, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, this appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

(2.) Appellant was working as a Salesman in the Society in question and on account of certain irregularities said to have been committed by him while discharging his duties as Salesman, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Majhouli, District Sidhi on 24.1.2012 removed him from the post on the basis of certain allegations leveled against him in the show cause notice dated 13.1.2012 issued to him. Challenging the said removal, the writ petition in question was filed and in writ petition a two fold submission was made. The first submission was that in violation to Clause 11 of the Control Order 2009, removal is illegal and further, it was stated that principles of natural justice has been violated, therefore, removal is unsustainable.

(3.) Today, during the course of hearing Shri Manish Soni, learned counsel took us through the show cause notice issued on 13.1.2012, reply submitted by the petitioner and tried to indicate that apart from not conducting a proper enquiry into the matter, explanation of the petitioner has not been properly considered. However, he argued that even though appellant has a remedy of approaching the Cooperative Court under Section 55(2) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, but learned Writ Court went into merit of the matter and holding that principles of natural justice cannot be made application in the case, dismissed the writ petition. On such ground, he argues that learned Writ Court has committed an error. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Govt. Adv., refutes the aforesaid and argues that the appellant having chosen to take recourse to remedy under Section 226 of the Constitution and having invited an order on merit from the Writ Court, he cannot now further seek any indulgence as the allegations leveled against him were found to be proved based on the findings recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer.