Rinku Vishavkarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1997 MP

                                   1
 IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                    ON THE 3 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                    WRIT PETITION No. 2320 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
RINKU VISHAVKARMA S/O SURESH VISHAVKARMA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION : UNEMPLOYED,
R/O VILLAGE SALIYA, BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.K.SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH :
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYT AND RURAL
      DEVELOMENT DEPTT. VALLABH BHAWAN
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    COLLECTOR BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    JANPAD PANCHAYAT, LAHAR THROUGH : CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    MEENA MANVENDRA SINGH PRESIDENT JANPAD
      PANCHAYAT LAHAR BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI JITESH SHARMA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

      This petition coming on for HEARING this day, the court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution o f India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Lahar distt. Bhind, whereby present petitioner has been removed from services.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that services of petitioner as contract employee (daily wager) have been terminated by order dated 11.01.2023. It was further argued that order is stigmatic in nature, therefore, an enquiry ought to have been conducted but no enquiry was conducted in respect of petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel f o r the petitioner relied upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 14658/2022 dated 8.7.2022, wherein termination was set aside on the ground that order was stigmatic in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal and Ors. reported in ILR 2001 SC

1144 to contend that in circumstances similar to the one attending the instant case, this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi, who was also a contractual employee working under the same Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, had set aside the termination by finding the same to be stigmatic and yet not preceded by any inquiry in accordance with law except a show cause notice. It is submitted that the Single bench in the said case of Rahul Tripathi placed reliance on the decisions of Apex Court in the case of Shamsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1974 SC 423, State of U.P. Vs. Ramchnadra Trivedi; AIR 1976 SC 2547, Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & ors.; AIR 1999 SC 983, Radheshyam Gupta Vs. U.P. Industries Agro; (1999) 2 SCC 21 & Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors; (2000) 5 SCC 152, where from the standpoint of a stigmatic order, distinction between motive and foundation was explained. The single bench of this Court in Rahul Tripathi (supra) truncated the order of termination assailed therein.

Learned Government Advocate for the State submitted that in the light of the legal position as enunciated, the respondents be given a liberty to conduct an enquiry as per law.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in the light of the judgment cited by the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to quash the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure P/11), passed by Chief Executive Officer, Lahar distt. Bhind, respondent No.3. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Rks

RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2023.02.03 18:13:18 +05'30'