Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar Rathore vs High Court Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 November, 2021
Author: Sheel Nagu
W.P. No.18657/2018
-:- 1 -:-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
Case No. W.P. No.18657 OF 2018
Parties Name Rajesh Kumar Rathore
vs.
High Court of M.P. and another
Date of order 23/11/2021
Bench Constituted Division Bench : Justice Sheel Nagu and
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Order passed by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Whether approved for Yes
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For Petitioner: Ms. Anjali Shrivastava
For Respondents/State : Shri B.N.
Mishra, respondent No.1.
Law laid down Held:
when the services of a temporary
employee or a probationer or contingency
paid employee is brought to an end by
passing innocuous order due to
unsatisfactory nature of service or on
account of an act for which some action is
taken, but the termination is made in a
simplicitor manner without conducting of
inquiry or without casting any stigma on
the employee, the provisions of Rule 9 of
the Rules 1980 can be taken aid of.
However, when the termination is founded
on acts of commission or omission, which
amounts to misconduct. Such an order
casts stigma on the conduct, character and
work of the employee and hence, the
principle of natural justice, opportunity of
hearing and inquiry is requirement of law.
Significant paragraph 7
numbers
W.P. No.18657/2018
-:- 2 -:-
ORDER
(23/11/2021)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of termination of his services
dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure-P-6) passed by the District & Sessions Judge,
Betul and the order dated 20.06.2018 (Annexure-P-9) whereby, the Registrar
General of the High Court of M.P., has rejected his departmental appeal.
2. The relevant facts briefly are ;
(i) The petitioner was initially appointed vide order dated 29.12.2016 as
daily wager on contract basis to discharge the work of
Chowkidar/Waterman/Mali by the District & Sessions Judge, Betul for a period
of 89 days purely on temporary basis against the Contingency Establishment,
however, vide order dated 23.03.2017, the period of his services was extended.
(ii) Vide show cause notice dated 15.05.2017, he was called-upon by the
District & Sessions Judge Betul, to show-cause as to why his services should
not be terminated on account of his unauthorized absence between the period
25.04.2017 to 12.05.2017, which was stated to have constitute a clear act of
misconduct.
(iii) Despite service of the notice and in absence of any reply, looking to
his misconduct of unauthorized absence, vide order dated 06.06.2017
(Annexure-P-6), the District & Sessions Judge, Betul terminated the services of
the petitioner.
(iv) The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal dated 04.01.2018 but
the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 20.06.2018 (Annexure-P-9).
W.P. No.18657/2018
-:- 3 -:-
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on
account of sudden death of his grand-mother, he had to proceed on leave.
During the said period, his father also fell badly ill and he had to escort him to
Nagpur for medical treatment. His father had undergone heart surgery and
during the said period, petitioner had to remain with him at Hospital at Nagpur.
When condition of his father improved, the petitioner went to the Office where
he was informed that his services were terminated. He did not receive any
show-cause notice and he being poor person was ignorant of the rules and,
taking into consideration severe hardship which he had undergone, the
punishment of termination of his services is disproportionate. The petitioner has
relied upon the judgments in the case of Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev Gandhi
Shiksha Mission, Bhopal1, Krishna Pal v. District & Sessions Judge,
Morena2, Ramcharan vs. State of M.P. and others3, and Malkhan Singh
Malviya vs. State of M.P.4 and submits that on the basis of aforesaid legal
pronouncement when stigmatic order is passed against an employee, the same
requires conducting of a departmental enquiry and without departmental
enquiry, such an order casting stigma, is against the principle of natural justice.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1
submits that the show-cause notice was duly served upon the petitioner and he
chose not to file the reply. Taking into consideration the nature of services of
the petitioner which are purely temporary and contractual in nature, no
1 2001 (3) MPLJ 616.
2 W.P.17745/2016 order dated 21.02.2017.
3 W.P. 16572/2014 order dated 02.08.2017.
4 W.A. 1166/2017 judgment dt. 08.03.2018.
W.P. No.18657/2018
-:- 4 -:-
departmental enquiry is necessary to be conducted. The misconduct of absence
from duty is undisputed and, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that
the impugned order violates the principle of natural justice. In such a case,
compliance of the principle of natural justice is "useless formality". He also
submits that the High Court has limited scope of judicial review in the matter
of departmental actions and hence, no leniency can be shown to the petitioner
and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. He has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of S.L. Kapoor vs.
Jagmohan5, Karnataka State SRTC vs. S.G. Kutturappa and another6,
Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India7, Syndicate Bank vs. General
Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and another 8, APSTRC v. S.
Jayaram9, Meghmala and others vs. G. Narasimh Redy and others10 and
Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekran11.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
record.
6. The short question of law involved in the present case is as to whether
the services of an employee under the Rules relating to Recruitment and
Conditions of Service of Contingency Paid (District and Sessions Judge
Establishment) Employees Rules, 1980, can be terminated without conducting a
5 (1980) 4 SCC 379.
6 (2005) 5 SCC 409.
7 (2007) 4 SCC 54.
8 (2000) 5 SCC 65.
9 (2004) 13 SCC 792.
10 (2010) 8 SCC 384.
11 (2015) 2 SCC 610.
W.P. No.18657/2018
-:- 5 -:-
departmental enquiry when an order of termination casts stigma on the
employee.
7. We are in full agreement with the legal position expounded in various
judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. However,
in the instant case, the question that arise for consideration, as stated above, is
squarely covered by the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case
of Krishna Pal Vs. District & Sessions Judge, Morena (supra). In the present
case, it is an admitted fact that neither charge-sheet was issued nor departmental
enquiry was conducted and order of termination attributes dereliction of duty
amounting to misconduct, and hence, the same is clearly stigmatic order. The
petitioner's services are admittedly governed under the Rules of 1980. If the
facts and situation of the present case is examined in the context of the facts and
situation of the case of Krishna Pal (supra), it is found that this Court had
taken a view (para-5 of the said judgment) that Normally when the services of a
temporary employee or a probationer or contingency paid employee is brought
to an end by passing innocuous order due to unsatisfactory nature of service or
on account of an act for which some action is taken, but the termination is made
in a simplicitor manner without conducting of inquiry or without casting any
stigma on the employee, the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980 can be
taken aid of. However, when the termination is founded on acts of commission
or omission, which amounts to misconduct. Such an order casts stigma on the
conduct, character and work of the employee and hence, the principle of natural
justice, opportunity of hearing and inquiry is requirement of law.
W.P. No.18657/2018
-:- 6 -:-
8. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law, we are not inclined to
take a different view, therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the impugned order
dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure-P-6) and order dated 20.06.2018 (Annexure-P-9)
are set aside.
9. Accordingly, petition is allowed. No order as to the costs.
[SHEEL NAGU] [PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV]
Judge Judge
pb
Digitally signed by PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Date: 2021.11.23 18:36:11 +05'30'
