Karan Sen vs Nagar Parishad Khirkiya

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88811
1 WP-25869-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
rd
ON THE 3 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 25869 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010463002025
KARAN SEN
Versus
NAGAR PARISHAD KHIRKIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Rohit Jain - Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly and Ms. Preeti Pathak - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Kamal Singh Rajput - Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"1. To issue a writ of Certiorari thereby
quashing/setting-aside impugned order
Annexure-P/1 dated 24.04.2025, in the interest of
justice.
2. To issue a writ of Mandamus thereby directing
the respondents to comply with the statutory
provision and issue show cause notice, if so
advised on any complaint made against the
petitioner and then take appropriate action, in the
interest of justice.
3. Any other relief deemed fit and proper be also
granted.
4. Cost of the petition."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on daily wage basis as
Computer Operator with the due approval of the competent authority namely the
President-in-Council and, in the present case, the Administrator. The appointment
was duly covered under Rule 152 of the Municipal Accounts Rules, 1971
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 03-11-2026
17:00:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88811
2 WP-25869-2025
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1971’). Since his appointment, the

petitioner has continuously discharged his duties in Nagar Parishad and has been
entrusted with various responsibilities including office work, election duties and
other computer-related assignments since 2021. The petitioner's father, Shri
Bhagwan Das Sen, lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta against the then
Chief Municipal Officer, Shri Atmaram Sanvre alleging that he had demanded a
bribe for carrying out necessary paperwork relating to the petitioner's father's
house. Consequently, criminal proceedings were initiated against the said Chief
Municipal Officer. Owing to the aforesaid complaint, Shri Atmaram Sanvre
developed animosity towards the petitioner as well and with a view to settling
personal scores, proceeded against the petitioner despite there being no
misconduct or fault attributable to him. Shri Atmaram Sanvre assumed charge as
Chief Municipal Officer on 05.05.2025 and even before formally taking charge,
passed the impugned order against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since
the petitioner's appointment was made with the approval of the Administrator
acting as the President-in-Council under Rule 152 of the Rules of 1971, his
services could not have been terminated independently by the Chief Municipal
Officer without the approval of the President-in-Council. However, the impugned
order reveals that the President-in-Council was merely informed and the matter
was never placed before it for consideration or approval. It is further submitted
that the petitioner's services were terminated without issuing any show-cause
notice, conducting an enquiry or affording him an opportunity of hearing, despite
the order being punitive and stigmatic in nature. The impugned action is also
motivated by mala fides, as respondent No.3, Shri Atmaram Sanvre, harboured
personal animosity towards the petitioner on account of the complaint lodged by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 03-11-2026
17:00:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88811
3 WP-25869-2025
his father before the Lokayukta. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has

placed reliance upon the orders passed by this Court in Chief Municipal Council
v. Rajesh Sen and others (Writ Appeal No.2572 of 2025, decided on 14.10.2025),
Ranjeet Dagor v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Writ Petition No.1473 of
2025, decided on 13.08.2025) and Bhuri Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh and
others (Writ Petition No.35027 of 2025, decided on 10.09.2026) by the Gwalior
Bench. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order, having been passed
without competence, arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice,
deserves to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the petition
and supported the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits
that the competent administrative authority is empowered to take appropriate
administrative decisions including discontinuation of services in accordance with
law and administrative exigencies. It is further submitted that the petitioner was
engaged as a daily-wage employee under Rule 152 of the Municipal Accounts
Rules, 1971, which does not confer any indefeasible right upon him to continue in
service irrespective of his performance and conduct. While working as a
Computer Operator in the Housing Branch of Nagar Parishad, Khirkiya, the
petitioner repeatedly failed to furnish the requisite information within the
stipulated time, and several complaints were received regarding dereliction of
duty, delay in processing official work and non-cooperation. The communication
dated 23.12.2024 also reflects administrative dissatisfaction with his performance.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has placed
reliance upon the orders passed by this Court in Virendra Ahirwar (Khare) v.
Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority and another (Writ Petition
No.5271 of 2020, decided on 26.07.2023) and Mo. Masoom Khan v. State of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 03-11-2026
17:00:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88811
4 WP-25869-2025
Madhya Pradesh (Writ Petition No.13074 of 2022, decided on 15.06.2022) by the

Gwalior Bench. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order was passed
purely on administrative grounds and in public interest, without any personal
vendetta or mala fide intention. It is also contended that the petitioner has an
efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the competent Labour Court for
redressal of his grievance.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that that the petitioner
has levelled allegations of mala fides without placing any cogent material on
record to substantiate the same. Merely because certain grievances existed
between the concerned persons, no inference of personal vendetta can be drawn
against the answering respondent. It is further submitted that the criminal
proceedings initiated by the Special Police Establishment on 22.04.2025 in
connection with Crime No.73/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act are entirely distinct from the administrative
action relating to the petitioner's employment. The mere pendency of such
criminal proceedings does not establish any mala fide intention on the part of the
answering respondent or render the impugned termination order legally
unsustainable.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The petitioner has challenged the order of termination primarily on the
grounds of lack of competence, violation of the principles of natural justice and
mala fides. However, the petitioner was engaged as a Computer Operator, and the
dispute essentially relates to the discontinuation of his services. The questions
concerning the nature of his engagement, the legality of termination and the
alleged violation of his service conditions involve factual aspects which can
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 03-11-2026
17:00:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88811
5 WP-25869-2025
appropriately be examined by the competent Labour Court. The petitioner has an

efficacious alternative remedy available under the labour laws. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
controversy or the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 24.04.2025,
this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition in view of the
availability of an efficacious alternative remedy. However, the petitioner shall be
at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy before the competent Labour Court, in
accordance with law. In the event of such proceedings being initiated, the Labour
Court shall consider and decide the matter independently on its own merits,
without being influenced by any observation made in this order.
9. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as
to costs.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
THK

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 03-11-2026
17:00:00