SHIVA PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking for following reliefs :-

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed on the basis of compassionate appointment vide order dtd. 22/12/2009. Petitioner was sent to the Police Training School, Tighra, Gwalior for the training on 18/10/2011. During training, petitioner fell severely ill and because of illness, he remained absent from training for the period of 140 days i.e. from 10/11/2011 to 2/4/2012. Due to the absence from training, departmental enquiry was initiated against petitioner and after conducting the said enquiry, petitioner has been dismissed from service by order dtd. 5/5/2013. Thereafter, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of petitioner by order dtd. 25/6/2013. Thereafter, petitioner has preferred a mercy appeal that has also been rejected by order dtd. 5/10/2013. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that Officials of the PTS, Tighra admitted the petitioner to Government Hospital and one Praveen Mehra was appointed as Attendant to the petitioner and investigation report and other papers have already been submitted by petitioner, but that have not been considered. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maan Singh Vs. Union of India & Others, passed in Appeal(Civil) 2531 of 2001 vide order dtd. 18/2/2003.

(3.) Per contra, learned Government Advocate submitted that initially, petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis in the year 2009 and within a short period i.e. near about four years, petitioner was punished thrice and out of all these punishments, petitioner was given two major and one minor punishments. It is further submitted that petitioner has rightly been dismissed from service as during the enquiry, petitioner was found guilty of misconduct. It is further submitted that opportunity of hearing has already been provided to the petitioner during the enquiry. Learned counsel for the respondents/State further submitted that the appellate authority after taking into consideration the ground raised and material available on record has also declined interference and maintained the order passed as per Annexure P-1 which is well within parameters of law, warrants no further interference. The entire departmental enquiry has been conducted in consonance of Rules and Provisions contemplated and after granting proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order of punishment has been passed by Disciplinary Authority and in such circumstances, in view of the well settled position in respect of decision of the administrative order whether rational or reasonable, the scope of interference under the writ proceedings become very narrow and limited, hence no interference is warrants and the petition is liable to be dismissed.