The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Babla Kol

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68064
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B AL P U R

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

rd
ON THE 3 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 609 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BABLA KOL AND OTHERS
With
WA/2777/2024, WA/593/2025, WA/598/2025, WA/599/2025,
WA/600/2025, WA/601/2025, WA/602/2025, WA/603/2025,
WA/604/2025, WA/605/2025, WA/606/2025, WA/607/2025,
WA/608/2025

Appearance:
Shri Bramhadatt Singh- Additional Advocate General for
appellants/State.
Shri Siddharth Gontia, Shri Sourabh Sunder, Shri Rajesh Tiwari
and Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, Advocates for the respondents in
respective appeals.

ORDER
Per : Justice B. P. Sharma:
The present batch of writ appeals has been preferred by the
appellant-State under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:12:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68064
2
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, assailing
the common order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge
in W.P. No.828/2023 and connected writ petitions. Since the controversy
involved in all the connected appeals arises out of the same set of
proceedings and identical issues are involved, all the appeals are being
heard and decided together by this common order.
2. For the purpose of considering the controversy, W.A. No.609 of
2025, is being treated as the leading case, and therefore, the facts of the
said appeal alone are being noticed. The facts of the connected appeals,
though having minor variations, need not be separately narrated, as the
principal issue arising for consideration in all the appeals is identical,
namely, whether the State Government, while exercising its power under
Section 331(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1961”) could cancel the earlier
absorption of the respondents/employees after affording them the
opportunity contemplated under the proviso to the said provision.
3. The respondents were employees of the erstwhile Gram Panchayat
Bangawan, District Anuppur. By Gazette Notification dated 26.09.2016,
Gram Panchayat Bangawan was converted into Nagar Parishad
Bangawan. Pursuant to such constitution, committees were constituted for
determination of the assets, liabilities and employees of the erstwhile
Gram Panchayat and for their absorption in newly constituted Nagar
Parishad. The State subsequently received complaints alleging serious
irregularities in absorption process and that persons who were not
employees of the erstwhile Gram Panchayat had been illegally absorbed.
An enquiry was accordingly ordered by Commissioner, Urban
Administration and Development, and the enquiry report allegedly
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:12:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68064
3
disclosed irregularities in absorption process. On the basis of the said
material, the State Government, exercising revisional powers under
Section 331(2) of the Act of 1961, passed the order dated 15.07.2022
cancelling the proceedings of absorption, followed by consequential
orders dated 22.07.2022 terminating the services of the concerned
employees.
4. The affected employees challenged the aforesaid orders before
learned Single Judge. By order dated 23.01.2024 passed in W.P.
No.828/2023 and connected matters, learned Single Judge held that
requirement contained in the proviso to Section 331(2) of the Act of 1961
had not been complied with, as the respondents therein failed to establish
that the concerned employees had been afforded an opportunity of
hearing before the absorption orders were reversed. Consequently, the
orders dated 15.07.2022 and 22.07.2022 were quashed, with liberty to the
authorities to undertake the exercise afresh after complying with the
statutory requirement of notice and hearing within the stipulated period.
5. Learned counsel of appellants/State submits that learned Single
Judge fell in error in holding that there was non-compliance with the
proviso to Section 331(2) of the Act of 1961. It is contended that the State
authorities had consciously afforded an opportunity of hearing to all
concerned employees before passing the order dated 15.07.2022.
Pursuant to the communication dated 01.04.2022, a programme for
hearing each of the concerned employees was prepared and individual
notices were issued and served over in addition WhatsApp also. Hearings
were scheduled on 22.04.2022 and 23.04.2022, followed by an online
hearing on 12.05.2022. The State relies upon the notices, service
particulars and replies submitted by employees to contend that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:12:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68064
4
statutory requirement was duly fulfilled. It is further submitted that
several employees submitted their replies pursuant to the notices and,
therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge that no opportunity of
hearing was granted is contrary to the material available on record.
6. It is further argued that very basis for exercise of power under
Section 331(2) of the Act of 1961 was the discovery of serious
irregularities in the absorption process, pursuant to the enquiry conducted
by the competent authorities. According to appellants, absorption had
resulted in persons being appointed who were not employees of the
erstwhile Gram Panchayats and the State Government was therefore
competent to examine the legality and propriety of the orders of
absorption. It is submitted that the order dated 22.07.2022 was merely
consequential to the substantive order dated 15.07.2022 and,
consequently, no separate opportunity of hearing was required before
passing the consequential termination order. The appellants further
contend that the writ petition did not specifically plead denial of
opportunity of hearing before the order dated 15.07.2022 and that the
learned Single Judge proceeded to decide the matters on a ground which
was not properly pleaded. On these grounds, the appellants seek setting
aside of the impugned order.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
mandatory requirement of the proviso to Section 331(2) of the Act of
1961 was not complied with. The respondents contend that the material
relied upon by the State consisted substantially of statements recorded
during the preliminary enquiry and of allegations concerning
irregularities in the absorption process, but the concerned employees were
not afforded an opportunity to meet those allegations before the adverse
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:12:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68064
5
decision was taken. The learned Single Judge, after examining the record,
found that the statements of the petitioners had not been taken and that
there was no material demonstrating that they had been specifically called
upon to show cause as to why their appointment or absorption should not
be cancelled. Thus, mere reference to an enquiry or recording of
statements of complainants and other persons could not substitute the
individual opportunity of hearing mandated by Section 331(2) of the Act
of 1961.
8. The respondents further submit that the adverse action directly
affected their service and accrued rights and, therefore, compliance with
the statutory proviso and principles of natural justice was indispensable.
The respondents also state that in their individual case, their substantive
grievance concerns their non-absorption as genuine employees of the
erstwhile Gram Panchayat Bangawan. They accordingly seek liberty to
pursue their actual grievance in appropriate proceedings.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The proviso to Section 331(2) of the Act, 1961 undoubtedly
requires that before an order is varied or reversed, notice must be given to
the parties interested to appear and to be heard in support of the order
sought to be varied. The statutory requirement, therefore, is undoubtedly
mandatory. However, the question is not whether the requirement of
natural justice was attracted, but whether, on the facts of the present case,
the said requirement was in fact complied with. The material placed
before us demonstrates that the State Government, after receiving
complaints regarding large-scale irregularities in the absorption of
employees of the erstwhile Gram Panchayats into newly constituted
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:12:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68064
6
Nagar Parishads, constituted an enquiry committee and thereafter
consciously initiated the process of hearing the affected employees. The
record contains the communication dated 01.04.2022 directing that
opportunity of hearing be given to all concerned, the programme fixing
dates of hearing, individual notices and details of their service. Notices
were issued for the hearings scheduled on 22.04.2022 and 23.04.2022 and
thereafter another notice was issued for online hearing on 12.05.2022.
The State has specifically placed on record that the notices were served
physically as well as through WhatsApp and that several employees
submitted their replies. These documents have not been effectively
controverted by the respondents.
11. The contention of the respondents that there was merely a
preliminary enquiry and that their statements were not recorded cannot, in
the facts of the present case, lead to the conclusion that the statutory
hearing contemplated by Section 331(2) was denied. The enquiry
conducted prior to initiation of the revisional exercise was for the purpose
of examining the complaints regarding the legality of the absorption
process. Section 331(2), however, does not prescribe a regular
departmental enquiry as a condition precedent for exercise of revisional
jurisdiction by the State Government. The record establishes that such
opportunity was subsequently provided before the State Government
passed the order dated 15.07.2022. Indeed, the appellants specifically
demonstrate that hearing programme was prepared for the employees of
all four Municipal Councils and that the service of notices was supported
by acknowledgments and other material placed on record. The fact that
the record was voluminous and that individual notices and replies were
not reproduced in their entirety cannot, by itself, invalidate the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:12:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68064
7
proceedings, particularly when the appellants have stated that the
complete material could be produced before the Court whenever required.
12. The grievance regarding want of hearing was directed against the
consequential order dated 22.07.2022. A writ Court is undoubtedly
empowered to examine violation of natural justice even where pleadings
are not happily drafted, but where the State produces documentary
material showing service of notices and participation in the hearing
process, such material cannot be brushed aside without examining
whether it establishes compliance with the statutory mandate. The
appellants specifically point out that the notices and acknowledgments
were never disputed by filing an appropriate counter-affidavit either in
the writ proceedings or in the present appeals.
13. The respondents’ reliance on Shrawan Kumar Jha v. State of
Bihar, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 330 , regarding the necessity of natural justice,
is distinguishable, as in the present case the employees were duly issued
notices and afforded an opportunity of hearing before the order dated
15.07.2022. So far as the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3),
(2006) 4 SCC 1, is concerned, the limits of regularisation of illegal
appointments, does not determine the present controversy, which is
confined to the legality of the State Government's exercise of revisional
power under Section 331(2) of the Act of 1961 and compliance with its
proviso. The question before us is not whether an employee acquires a
vested right by long continuation, but whether the statutory hearing
requirement preceding reversal of the absorption order was fulfilled.
14. We are further of the view that the State Govt. was justified in
examining the legality of the absorption process upon receipt of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:12:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68064
8
complaints disclosing substantial irregularities, particularly when Section
7 of the Act contemplated absorption only of those officers and servants
who were in employment of the erstwhile Gram Panchayats immediately
before constitution of the Municipal Councils, whereas the material
placed on record disclosed a substantial disparity between the actual
number of employees and the number subsequently absorbed. In exercise
of judicial review, this Court is not required to substitute its own view for
that of the competent statutory authority when the authority has acted
within its jurisdiction and upon relevant material. The State Government
having exercised the power vested in it under Section 331(2) of the Act of
1961 to examine the legality and propriety of the absorption, the learned
Single Judge, in our considered opinion, erred in interfering with the
order dated 15.07.2022.
15. Consequently, all writ appeals are allowed . The common order
dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.828/2023 and connected writ petitions is set aside.


(ANAND PATHAK) (B.P. SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE




SM

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 9/3/2026
5:12:40 PM