Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Singh Tomar vs Madhya Pradesh State Legal ... on 25 November, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 25th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No.27161 OF 2022
BETWEEN:-
DHARMENDRA SINGH THAKUR,
S/O SHRI MAHIP SINGH THAKUR,
AGED- 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION-
UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE AND
POST JHANDA, TEHSIL NARWAR,
DISTRICT SHIVPURI, MADHYA
PRADESH.
........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ALOK KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MADHYA PRADESH STATE LEGAL
SERVICES AUTHORITY, PLOT
NO.574, BEHIND OF
MAHAKAUSHAL COLLEGE,
GOVINDH BHAVAN COLONY,
SOUTH CIVIL LINES, JABALPUR,
MADHYA PRADESH 4820012
THROUGH ITS MEMBER
SECRETARY
2. DISTRICT LEGAL AID SERVICES
AUTHORITY, DISTRICT SHIVPURI,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY/
DISTRICT JUDGE SHIVPURI,
MADHYA PRADESH
2
3. CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT LEGAL
SERVICES AUTHORITY, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI, MADHYA PRADESH
4. DISTRICT LEGAL AID OFFICER,
DISTRICT SHIVPURI, MADHYA
PRADESH
5. RAVINDRA RAJAK, CHOWKIDAR,
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES
AUTHORITY, NYAYA SEVA SADAN,
DISTRICT SHIVPURI, MADHYA
PRADESH
........RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking following relief.
(i) That, the impugned order Annexure P/1 may kindly
be declared as illegal and the same may kindly be
declared as illegal and the same may kindly be
quashed.
(ii) That, respondents may kindly be directed to re-
instate the petitioner with consequential benefits.
(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper may also be given to the
petitioner along with interest and costs.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that by order dated
20.12.2017 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Chowkidar on
contractual basis. As per clause 4 of the appointment order, the
contractual services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated in case
if his work or behavior is found to be unsatisfactory. His term was
extended. It appears that on 4.7.2022 in between 9:00-9:30 PM in the
night the Inspection of ADR building was conducted by District Legal
Aid Officer and it is alleged that the petitioner was not found present on
his duty and, accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 4.7.2022.
The said show cause notice was duly replied. However, by order dated
6.7.2022, the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the
ground that they are not found to be satisfactory in nature. It is submitted
by the counsel for the petitioner that by circular dated 5.6.2018 it has
been directed by the State that the services of the contractual employees
shall not be terminated in absence of any reasonable cause/reason. It is
also provided that in case of serious charges reasonable opportunity of
hearing should be granted after issuing a show cause notice as well as
after completing an enquiry in this regard. In the present case although
the services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that his
services were not found satisfactory but no enquiry was conducted. Thus
it is clear that where the order of termination is punitive in nature, then
the delinquent officer is entitled for an enquiry. To buttress his
contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments
passed by this Court in the cases of Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev Gandhi
Shiksha Mission, Bhopal reported in 2001(3) MPLJ 616, Jitendra vs.
State of M.P. and others reported in 2008 (4) MPLJ 670 and Prem
Chand Yadav vs. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd.
and others reported in 2013(2) MPLJ 223.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Clause 4 of his appointment order reads as under:-
4- fu;qDr deZpkjh dk dk;Z ,oa O;ogkj vlarks"ktud ik;s
tkus ;k fdlh Hkh izdkj dh f'kdk;r ik;s tkus ij fcuk fdlh
lquokbZ ds rRdky izHkko ls lekIr dj nh tkosaxhA
5. It appears that on 21.6.2022 the District Legal Aid Officer had
carried out the inspection of ADR building sometimes in between 9:00-
9:30 in the night and the petitioner was not found on his duty and,
accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 4.7.2022 which was duly
replied by the petitioner. However, the order of termination of his
contractual services has been passed on the ground that his services were
not found to be satisfactory.
6. Now the only question for consideration is "as to whether the
termination of the services of the petitioner on the ground unsatisfactory
performance can be said to be stigmatic in nature or not?"
7. Clause 4 of the order of appointment specifically provides that the
services of a contractual employee can be terminated even without any
notice if his work and behavior is found to be unsatisfactory. Whether the
service of an employee is satisfactory or not is as per the assessment of
the employer. The impugned order is in-consonance with clause 4 of the
appointment order. As per clause 1.14.1 of circular dated 5.6.2018 issued
by GAD, a detailed enquiry is required in case of serious charges only.
8. Since the order under challenge is not stigmatic in nature,
therefore, no detailed enquiry was required specifically when the
inspection was carried out by the District Legal Aid Services Authority
himself.
9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the impugned order is
stigmatic in nature. Even otherwise for the sake of clarity, it is directed
that the order of termination of service shall not be treated as stigma in
case of any subsequent employment.
10. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Arun*
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2022.11.28 12:45:11 +05'30'
