HEMLATA MANDLOI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition challenging the order dated 14th January, 2009 (Annexure P-l) passed by the state Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 8 (5) of the madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1961') terminating the services of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that she is a member of the scheduled Tribe and she was appointed by virtue of a process of selection conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission for the post of chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. The petitioner in compliance to the appointment order dated 10th January, 2006 submitted her joining on 23rd january, 2006 at Janpad Panchayat, Chachoda, District Guna and thereafter started working as the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Chachoda, district Guna. The petitioner has further stated that the Accountant of the janpad Panchayat has committed certain irregularities and a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 11th January, 2007 by the Collector, Guna. In the charge-sheet which is enclosed as Annexure P-3, allegations were levelled against the petitioner that she has purchased certain material by not following the Store Purchase Rules and, therefore, she has committed financial irregularities in the matter. The petitioner did submit a reply to the charge-sheet and the same is on record as Annexure P-5. The petitioner has brought on record, a letter dated 15th January, 2009 (Annexure P-6) wherein it has been certified that at the relevant point of time one Dr. P. N. Meena was working as the In-charge Chief Executive Officer, who has purchased the material worth rs. 2. 5 lacs on 28th April, 2006 and the petitioner has joined as the Chief executive Officer on 29th April, 2006. Thus, it has been certified that at the relevant point of time when the material in question was purchased, the petitioner was not working as the Chief Executive Officer. The further contention of the petitioner is that she is a member of the Scheduled Tribe and as she wanted to perform inter-caste marriage, she has submitted an application before the authorities dated 28-12-2006 (Annexure P-l 1) informing them about the marriage (inter-caste marriage) and therefore, she was not present for performing her duties on 28th December, 2006. The petitioner has further stated that after marrying one Awadesh Kumar Sharma, the petitioner has reported back for duty on 15th January, 2007, however, she was absent from duty with effect from 28th December, 2006. Though the petitioner has informed the authorities about her inter-caste marriage, stern action has been taken against her and an order of dismissal from service has been passed vide impugned order dated 14th January, 2009 (Annexure P-l ). The contention of the petitioner is that she belongs to a tribal family, married out of caste and the same has been termed as a misconduct and she has been thrown out of service by invoking the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1961.

(2.) THE respondents have filed a reply and it has been stated in the reply that the petitioner was on probation and the period of probation came to an end with effect from 10th January, 2006, however, the period of probation was extended by an order dated 21st January, 2008 and, therefore, the petitioner continued on probation. The contention of the respondents is that the power conferred under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1961 has rightly been exercised and they have discontinued the petitioner from service as she was not discharging the duties properly. The respondents have enclosed a letter of the Commissioner, gwalior Division, Gwalior dated 19th January, 2007 which is on record as annexure R-1, wherein it has been stated by the Commissioner, Gwalior division, Gwalior that the petitioner has entered into a love marriage and is unauthorisedly absent from duty with effect from 26th December, 2006 and her father has lodged a First Information Report against the petitioner in respect of missing person and, therefore, the same amounts to misconduct. The learned commissioner has gone to the extent of observing that the inter-caste marriage of the petitioner has tarnished the image of the State Government. The collector, District Guna in his letter dated 11th January, 2007 (Annexure R-2)has besides referring to the earlier absence of the petitioner has recommended for termination of the service of the petitioner and also made comments about the inter-caste marriage of the petitioner. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad panchayat, District Panchayat Guna in the letter dated 3rd January, 2007, which is enclosed as Annexure R-3 has categorically admitted that he was informed by inland letter about the marriage by the petitioner. It has been stated in the aforesaid letter dated 3rd January, 2007 that the petitioner was absent from duty with effect from 28th December, 2006 to 15th January, 2007 and the information was given to the authorities regarding her inter-caste marriage. The respondents have again enclosed a letter of Dr. Komal Singh, Commissioner, gwalior Division, Gwalior dated 14th November, 2007 which is enclosed as annexure R-5 wherein it has been reiterated that the petitioner has left with some other person and a report has been lodged by her father and conduct of the petitioner tarnishes the image of the State Government. The Commissioner has also observed that the conduct of the petitioner amounts to misconduct involving moral turpitude. Not only this, Annexure R-7 is a note-sheet wherein it has been observed to conclude the Departmental Enquiry pending against the petitioner before expiry of the period of probation and finally the note-sheet reflects that the service of the petitioner should be put to an end. In the last line an observation was made that the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior and the learned Commissioner has observed that the misconduct of the petitioner involves moral turpitude.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed an application for taking the additional facts and the documents on record. The petitioner has enclosed a letter of the deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Village Development Department, State government dated 16th September, 2008 (Annexure P-13) addressed to the commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior wherein it has been informed that the petitioner's conduct of marrying inter-caste does not amount to the misconduct and merely because a First Information Report has been lodged by her father, the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated or action cannot be taken against the petitioner in the matter. The Deputy Commissioner, Office of development Commissioner, State of Madhya Pradesh vide letter dated 9th october, 2007 has observed that the Departmental Enquiry pending against the petitioner should be concluded in the matter. However, the fact remains that the petitioner's services have been put to an end taking into account her inter-caste marriage. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is enough material on record including the note-sheets and the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, gwalior has recommended for imposition of major penalty against the petitioner on account of the fact that she has entered into an inter-caste marriage. In the present case, the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe and married a person belonging to the general category. Merely because, the father of the petitioner has lodged a First Information Report against the petitioner that does not mean that the petitioner has committed any misconduct in the matter.