Prateek Yogi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12999 MP

                                                              1
                            IN    THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
                                                ON THE 10 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 24802 of 2019

                           BETWEEN:-
                           PRATEEK YOGI S/O SURESH YOGI, AGED ABOUT 31
                           Y E A R S , OCCUPATION:  UNEMPLOYED    GRAM
                           KAHTHODI, TEHSIL TARANA, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI L. C. PATNE, ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
                                 SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, MANTRALAYA,
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    THE COMMISSIONER COM M ISSIONER UJJAIN
                                 DIST UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    THE JILA PANCHAYAT PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
                                 DEVELOPMENT      DEPARTMENT UJJAIN DIST
                                 UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    THE    CHIEF   EXECUTIVE   OFFICER JILA
                                 PAN CHAYAT TARANA DIST UJJAIN (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI CHETAN JAIN, G.A.)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 05/06/2018, whereby, the services of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 10-08-2023 14:42:43

petitioner has been terminated. He is also aggrieved by the order passed in appeal dated 20/09/2018 and 22/10/2019.

The facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued in the year 2012 for the post of Gram Rojgarh Sahayak. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Gram Rojgarh Sahayak. By the impugned order dated 05/06/2018, the services of the petitioner has been terminated by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Tarana on the ground that the petitioner has been found gross negligent in discharging of his duties for verification work of beneficiaries under the mission.

Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal for reconsideration

of same before the ECO, Zila Panchayat, Ujjain. The same was also dismissed on merits. His second appeal also dismissed by the Commissioner, Ujjain by order dated 27/10/2019.

It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis and his services have been terminated by stigmatic order without holding any regular inquiry.

The parties are heard at length.

Upon perusal of the impugned order of termination, it is axiomatic that the impugned order has been issued on the allegation of gross negligence in discharging of duties in verification work. The petitioner was a contractual employee and his services has been terminated by stigmatic order without holding any inquiry in the matter.

The Apex Court in the case of Jitendra V/s. State of M.P. & Others 2008 (4) MPLJ 670 and also the judgment passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha

Signature Not Verified Mission, Bhopal [2001 (3) M.P.L.J. 616] wherein it has been held that if the Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 10-08-2023 14:42:43

order of termination is stigmatic, it cannot be regarded as termination simpliciter and, therefore, the same cannot be passed without holding inquiry. He has also placed reliance on the order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 402/2019 (The Mission Director, National Health Mission, Bhopal vs. Mukesh Yadav and Ors.). He also referred the judgment passed by the D.B. in the case of Mission Director, RCH/RCH/NRHM vs. Ranjit Jain & Anr. [2011(4) M.P.H.T. 266] . He also cited the orders passed by coordinate Bench dated 13.03.2019 passed in W.P. No.8682/2018 (Kishan Singh Dudwe vs. State of MP & Ors.) and also the order dated 04.07.2022 passed in WP No.19867/2021 (Madhav Awasya vs. State of MP & Ors) and order dated 25.04.2022 passed in WP No.23267/2019 (Omprakash Gurjar vs. Panchayat and Rural Development & Ors.). In the aforesaid cases, it has been held that in the cases of termination of service of contractual employee, the order of termination which is stigmatic in nature cannot be regarded as a termination simpliciter and, therefore, the services cannot be terminated without conducting regular inquiry.

In view of the aforesaid itself, it is settled law that the services of contract employee and Gram Rojgar Sahayak cannot be terminated by stigmatic order without holding any inquiry. In view of the same, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages. The

liberty is granted to the respondents to take action against the petitioner, if desired so in accordance with the law.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE krjoshi Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 10-08-2023 14:42:43

Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 10-08-2023 14:42:43