Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Chandra Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 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 6 th OF MARCH, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 31102 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAMESH CHANDRA CHOUHAN S/O SHRI SHYAMLAL
CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, EX GRAM ROJGAR SAHAYAK GRAM
PANCHAYAT BANJARI VILLAGE BANJARI, TEHSIL
GAROTH, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI L. C. PATNE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
MANTRALAYA BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COLLECTOR DIST. MANDSAUR, DIST.
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JLA PANCHAYAT
MANDSAUR, DIST. MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. GEETANJALI CHAURASIA - 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.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India being aggrieved by the order dated 22/09/2023, whereby, the services of
the petitioner has been terminated. He is also aggrieved by the order passed in
appeal dated 05.12.2023.
3. The facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued in the year
2012 for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. The petitioner was appointed on the
post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. By the impugned order dated 22/09/2023, the
services of the petitioner has been terminated by Chief Executive Officer, Jila
Panchayat, Mandsaur on the ground that the petitioner demanded and received
illegal gratification of Rs.3,796/- for adding the name of two daughter-in-laws of
the complainant Harlal Chatra Banjari for extending the benefit of "Ladli Behna
Yojana".
4. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal for reconsideration
of same before the Collector, Mandsaur, the same was also dismissed on merits
vide order dated 05.12.2023.
5. 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.
6. The parties are heard at length.
7. Upon perusal of the impugned order of termination, it is axiomatic that
t h e impugned order has been issued on the allegation of receiving illegal
gratification. The petitioner was a contractual employee and his services has
been terminated by stigmatic order without holding any inquiry in the matter.
8. 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.
9. 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 both the impugned orders dated 22.09.2023 and 05.12.2023 are hereby set
aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with
50% backwages within a period of two months from the date of communication
of the order. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to take action
against the petitioner, if desired so in accordance with the law.
10. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Bahar
