SURENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by an order of dismissal dated 20th March 2006.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as peon vide an order dated 1.8.1977 on probation for a period of 2 years and on completion of probationary period successfully he was confirmed by the governing body vide order dated 31.01.1979. The petitioner has further stated that he was appointed as a peon but the then Chairman who was having bias attitude towards him, directed him to work as Chowkidar instead of a peon. The petitioner has further stated that while he was performing his duties as Chowkidar during the intervening night of 14/15-6r2005 a theft took place in the institute. A FIR was also lodged on 15.6.2005 and a notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.6.2005 by the in-charge Principal and he was placed under suspension on 22.6.2005. The petitioner has further stated that thereafter a charge sheet was issued on 1.7.2005 and the petitioner was directed to file a reply to the charges levelled against him. The petitioner did submit a reply to the charge-sheet and the In-charge Principal not being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner has appointed one retired Naib Tahsildar B.R. Singh as an Inquiry Officer and the enquiry was concluded inspite of petitioner's objection and a show cause notice along with enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner on 28.12.2005. The petitioner did submit a reply to the show- cause notice and objected the appointment of Inquiry Officer as well as raised other grounds in the matter. An order was passed on 20th March 2006 dismissing the petitioner from service and the petitioner being aggrieved by dismissal has preferred an appeal before the State Government as contained in Annexure P/16. The petitioner has raised various grounds before this Court while assailing the order of termination. The petitioner's contention is that under Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Ashashkiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapkon Tatha Karmchariyon Ko Padchyut Karne/Sewa Se Hatane Sambandhi Prakriya) Niyam, 1983, the head of the institution has to be the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that approval of competent authority is required before passing an order of punishment and in the present case, no such approveal was obtained at any point of time. The petitioner has also stated that the Inquiry Officer has recorded the evidence behind the back of the petitioner and has held the petitioner guilty of the alleged misconduct.

(3.) A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and it has been admitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon, however, he was discharging the duties of Chowkidar which were assigned to him after obtaining his consent. It has been further stated that Dr. A.S Rajput being the senior most Professor was serving as In-Charge Principal and the order of dismissal has been passed after following the prescribed procedure under the law.