MAYA LODHI Vs. GWALIOR MANSIK AROGYA SHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the orders Annexure P-1 and P-2. By Annexure P-2, a minor punishment has been inflicted on the petitioner. Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that during the pendency of the petition the said punishment is over and he is not pressing the relief against Annexure P-2. He submits that he is aggrieved by Annexure P-1, whereby despite imposing punishment by Annexure P-2, an affidavit is directed to be filed by the petitioner which should contain an apology and assurance that in future she will not commit similar mistakes/misconduct. He submits that this kind of order is totally unknown to law. If petitioner has committed an error, she has undergone the punishment but no such affidavit can be asked to be filed. He submits that interim order was passed against Annexure P-1 on 03.11.2004 which is still in vogue and, therefore, same may be made absolute.

(2.) PER Contra, Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Dy. Advocate General for the other side, supported the order and submits that if the petitioner will not commit any misconduct, there should not be any hesitation to file such affidavit.

(3.) THE petitioner has admittedly undergone the punishment arising out of the misconduct mentioned in Annexure P-2. In the opinion of this Court, it is always open for the employer to take appropriate action if any misconduct is again committed by the employee. Neither Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 nor any other provision of law provides for any such affidavit by the employee. In other words, no provision is pointed out, which permits the employer to seek affidavit from the employee for her future conduct.