Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shadab Khan on 4 March, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 420 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR DISTRICT BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PANCHAYAT
BARWANI, DISTRICT BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JANPAD
PANCHAYAT BARWANI, DISTRICT BARWANI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT, PANCHAYAT
SILAWAD, DISTRICT BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM , LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
APPELLANT/STATE)
AND
SHADAB KHAN S/O MOHD. NAIN KHAN, AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EX GRAM ROJGAR SAHAYAK,
R/O VILLAGE SILAWAD DISTT. BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No. 1712/2024, an application for condonation of delay.
For the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No.1712/2024 is allowed.
The delay of 129 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Also heard on the question of admission.
The present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha
Nyayalaya(Khand Nyaypith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the order
dated 11.07.2023, passed in W.P. No.3557/2014.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein had filed a writ petition
challenging the order dated 24.12.2013 by which he was terminated from services on
the ground of having been found negligent in discharging of his duties under
the Social Security Mission.
3. The learned Single Judge while allowing W.P. No.3557/2014 had
passed the following order vide order dated 11.07.2023:-
8. 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. Admittedly,
the impugned order is passed by Chief Executive Officer, Jila
Panchayat, Badwani. As per clause 15.2, the power is conferred to the
Collector and he is the authority to terminate the services of Gram
Rojgarh Sahayak. The respondents have failed to show any provisions
which permitted the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat to
terminate the services of the Gram Rojghar Sahayak. They have also
not filed any order of delegation of power to the Chief Executive
Officer to terminate the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was a
contractual employee and his services has been terminated by
stigmatic order without holding any inquiry in the matter.
9. 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.
10. 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. Further the order is
without jurisdiction therefore, the objection raised by the respondent
regarding alternative remedy cannot be sustained. Even otherwise,
the alternative remedy is not absolute bar in exercising jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the
order impugned is without jurisdiction. 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.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/State contended that the respondent
was appointed on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak on contractual basis,
therefore, the authority issued the show cause notice and terminated the
respondent from service. The show cause notice categorically explained all the
negligent acts done by the respondent which he did not reply, meaning thereby,
he has accepted all the charges. In such cases, conducting inquiry is a futile
exercise and, therefore, the appellant did not conduct inquiry. The writ Court
came to a wrong conclusion that principles of natural justice has been violated.
Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set
aside and the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the
record.
6. On perusal of the record as well as the impugned order dated
11.07.2023, passed in W.P. No.3557/2014 it is seen that the learned Single
Judge has considered that the respondent's service has been terminated by the
Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Badwani, who is not the appointing
authority of the respondent. The competent authority for termination from the
post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak is the Collector as per Clause 15.2 of the
Scheme. On these two grounds, the petition has been allowed.
7. Admittedly, the termination amounts to a major penalty. In such an
event, a regular inquiry ought to have been conducted and the basic principle of
natural justice ought to have been followed which has not been done in the case.
Moreover, the learned Single has rightly come to the conclusion that the C.E.O.
is not the appointing authority, therefore, he could not have terminated the
services of the respondent. No ground for interference is made out in the order
passed by the Single Judge.
8. The writ appeal being bereft of merit and substance is hereby
dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
