MANOHAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the Resolution dated 13.07.2016 and order dated 08.09.2016 by which his services has been terminated.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as "Jansewak" which is a Class-IV post. He is a permanent employee of Municipal Council, Mahidpur, District Ujjain. The services of the petitioner are governed under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Employees Recruitment and Condition of Service Rules, 1968 [in brief "the Rules of 1968"]. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 22.12.2015 alleging various allegations. According to the petitioner the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet were not provided to him. The petitioner submitted an application dated 05.01.2016 for supply of those documents. The petitioner some how submitted brief reply to the charge-sheet denying the allegations made therein. Without appointing any Enquiry Officer to enquire the charges as contemplated under Rule 14 of M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1966 [in brief "the Rules of 1966"], the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 appointed Two Member Committee to conduct the enquiry on the charge-sheet. The President-in-Council (PIC) vide Resolution No.239 recommended for removal of the services of the petitioner. In pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution, vide order dated 08.09.2016 the services of the petitioner has been terminated by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council. Being aggrieved by the Resolution and order, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court.

(3.) The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their reply to the writ petition by submitting that the petitioner is having remedy of appeal under Rule 56 of the Rules 1968 before the Commissioner against the order of termination, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. It is further submitted that vide order dated 03.11.2015 the petitioner was suspended as there were serious charges of misconduct against him. The requisite documents were provided to him where upon he had submitted his reply (Annexure P/3). Thereafter Committee has conducted the enquiry pertaining to the charges of misconduct against the petitioner. During the enquiry, the statements of witnesses were recorded and Enquiry Report was placed before the President-in-Council on 13.07.2016 and the Council took a decision to terminate the services of the petitioner.