Shiv Anjana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4492 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shiv Anjana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 February, 2024

Author: Subodh Abhyankar

Bench: Subodh Abhyankar

                                                             1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
                                             ON THE 16 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 14101 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SHIV ANJANA S/O SHRI HAT SINGH ANJANA, AGED
                          ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE GRAM
                          ROJGAR SAHAYAK ASSISTANT SECRETARY GRAM
                          PANCHAYAT SIKANDARI JANPAD PANCHAYAT UJJAIN
                          R/O VILLAGE GOTHADA TEHSIL UJJAIN (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                          (BY MS. NEERJA PATNE, ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY
                                VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    SHRI KUMAR PURUSHOTTAM OCCUPATION:
                                COLLECTOR   AND  DISTRICT   PROGRAM
                                COORDINATOR     MNREGS        UJJAIN,
                                COLLECTORATE CAMPUS, UJJAIN (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    THE   CHIEF     EXECUTIVE     OFFICER JILA
                                PANCHAYAT UJJAIN, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    THE   CHIEF  EXECUTIVE   OFFICER JANPAD
                                PANCHAYAT UJJAIN, DIST. UJJAIN (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI AMAY BAJAJ, P.L./G.A.)

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

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 05/06/2023, whereby, the services of the petitioner has been terminated.

3. The facts of the case are that pursuant to Circular dated 02.06.20212, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak vide order dated 18.09.2012. By the impugned order dated 05/06/2023, the services of the petitioner has been terminated by Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Ujjain on the allegation that the petitioner also works in JU Agri Science Pvt. Ltd. Drug Company as a result of which work of Gram Panchayat Sikandari is getting affected.

4. 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.

5. The parties are heard at length.

6. Upon perusal of the impugned order of termination, it is axiomatic that the impugned order has been issued on the allegation that the petitioner also works in JU Agri Science Pvt. Ltd. Drug Company as a result of which work of Gram Panchayat Sikandari is getting affected. The petitioner was a contractual employee and his services has been terminated by stigmatic order without holding any inquiry in the matter.

7. 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 Mission, Bhopal [2001 (3) M.P.L.J. 616] wherein it has been held that if the 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.

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

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Bahar