Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Kurmi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 August, 2025
1
WP No. 33432 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 12th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 33432 of 2024
ASHISH KURMI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
.........................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Siddhant Kochar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Namdeo - Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
..........................................................................................................
ORDER
By way of present petition the challenge is made to order dated
07.10.2024 (Annexure P-4) whereby the services of the petitioner have
been terminated on account of presentation of Chalan in criminal case
involving Prevention of Corruption Act. The said order has been passed
without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without
even issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. As per reply of the
respondent,s the said order has been passed as intimation was received
from Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta, Sagar regarding
presentation of charge sheet against the petitioner before Special Court (PC
Act).
2. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra as this Court in WP.
No.14966/2023 has decided a similar matter by considering the judgment
of Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 1199/2021. The aforesaid case
has been decided in following manner:-
The present petition has been filed challenging the order
Annexure-P/4 whereby the services of the petitioner have been
terminated.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was working on the post of Gram Rojgar Shahayak and a challen under
Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(b), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act has been
presented against the petitioner and only on account of presentation of
challan his services have been terminated without any enquiry or other
proceedings.
3. The petitioner contends that till date there is no finding of guilt
against the petitioner by the criminal Court and even the respondents
have not conducted any parallel enquiry. Thus, the service of the
petitioner could not have been terminated in such a manner, though he
was a contractual employee.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that in
terms of the circular of the State Government dated 21.02.2018,
26.02.2018 and 02.11.2019. The services of contractual employee can be
terminated only on account of presentation of challan before the
criminal Court for offence involving moral turpitude or corruption. It is
contended that the circular dated 02.11.2019 specifically applies to
Gram Rojgar Shahayak and the petitioner was not entitled to any notice
or opportunity of hearing.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed
that the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the conditions attached
to the appointment order Annexure-P/1. As per condition No.15, it is
provided that in case the contractual employee is found in indulging in
any misconduct or criminal activity, then his contractual services may be
terminated after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing. Thus, it is
contended that that the petitioner, even if not entitle to a full fledged
departmental enquiry, but was entitle to an appropriate opportunity of
hearing.
6. The State has relied on government notification dated
21.02.2018 which provides that if any criminal case or trap case is
registered against contractual employee then his services can be
terminated without any show cause notice. The said circular has
modified an earlier circular dated 01.02.2016 wherein it was provided
that for terminating the services of contractual employee prior to expiry
of tenure of contract, one month salary may be paid. The aforesaid
circular dated 21.02.2018 has been interpreted vide order Annexure-P/8
and it has been held that opportunity of hearing even in such cases of
trapped is a must. It is so held in W.P No.10129 of 2018 decided on
09.05.2018 vide Annexure-P/8.
A Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.1199 of 2021 while
considering the same government circular has held as under:-
"The case of the petitioner is that initially he was appointed on
contract in the year 2018 for a period of two years. Thereafter, the
same was continued time and again and he is presently working on
contract. By virtue of the impugned order he was terminated from
services on the ground that the Lokayukt registered a case against him
in Crime No.385/2015 under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) & 13 (2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The chargesheet has also been
filed. Questioning the same, the instant writ petition was filed on the
ground that in terms of the norms of the Contract, unless for a period
of one month's notice is given, the contract could not be terminated.
Learned Single Judge while relying on the Government
Notification, dated 21.02.2018 held that it is not required and
accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in similar
circumstances, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the order
dated
30.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.16864 of 2018 stayed the order of
termination while granting liberty to the respondents therein, to follow
the provisions of law after providing reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.
On considering the reasons assigned, we are of the view that
the same relief was required to be granted to the petitioner herein.
Irrespective of the contentions being advanced, a one month's notice is
to be issued to the respondents. Since the same has been violated, the
impugned order of the termination, in our considered view, would not
survive for consideration.
Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed.
The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated
12.11.2021 in W.P.No.24692 of 2021 is set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.
The order of termination dated 03.11.2021 is set aside.
Liberty is granted to the respondents to take appropriate
action against the petitioner after following the conditions in the
contract by giving one month's notice before termination etc.
The appellant is therefore, permitted to continue in services till
then."
7. Consequently, following the order passed by the Division
Bench, this petition is disposed of in the following terms:-
1. The order of termination of Annexure-P/4 dated 19.05.2023 is
set aside.
2. Liberty is granted to the respondents to take appropriate action
against the petitioner after following conditions of the contract by giving
one month notice before termination.
3. The petitioner is permitted to continue in service till them.
4. No order as to back wages."
3. The counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that writ appeal against
the said order has been filed by the State, however, there is no stay in the
said writ appeal.
4. Considering the aforesaid, as the present case also stands on similar
footing, therefore the impugned order (Annexure P-4) in the present case is
also quashed in similar terms. The order in WP No.14966/2023 will apply
to the case of present petitioner also mutatis mutandis with similar liberty
being reserved to the respondents.
5. It is further observed that in case the writ appeal against order passed
in WP No.14966/2023 is allowed then consequences would fall on the
present petitioner also. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is allowed
and disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
nks JUDGE
