Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jay Singh Narwariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19542
1 WP-4049-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 28th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4049 of 2013
JAY SINGH NARWARIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishor Gupta - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the order dated 31.05.2013 may kindly be set aside.
(ii) That, the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in
service with all consequential benefits.
(iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
initially appointed on the post of Project Officer (Technical) in Zira
Panchayat, Gwalior vide order dated 04.06.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner
was working honestly, sincerity, with devotion in the respondent Department
and time to time the services/contract period of the petitioner has been
renewed by the authority. Thereafter, by order dated 31.05.2013, services of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19542
2 WP-4049-2013
the petitioner have been terminated without following the principles of
natural justice and without given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
It is further submitted that services of petitioner have been terminated
without holding any enquiry and stigmatic termination order has been issued
by the respondents and stigmatic order cannot be issued without holding any
regular departmental enquiry.
3. To bolster his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the
judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench in WP No.23267/2019 (Omprakash
Gurjar vs. Panchayat and Rural Development & Ors.), also the order dated
12.09.2023 passed in WP No.19117/2022 (Hukumchand Solanki vs.
Panchayat and Rural Development & Ors.) and the order dated 19.07.2023
passed in WP No.14663/2022 (Arvind Malviya vs. State of MP & Ors.). The
relevant para of the judgment in the case of Arvind Malviya (supra) has been
pressed into service which reads as under:-
"3) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the fact that the present petition is covered by the
order dated 25/4/2022 passed in WP No.23267/2019 (Omprakash
Gurjar (supra)), the present petition is allowed. The impugned
order is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate
the petitioner in service with 50% backwages within a period of 2
months from the date of communication of the order. However,
liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed against the
petitioner afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. The said
order passed in W.P. No.23267/2019 shall apply mutatis mutandis
to the present case."
4. It is submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal & Others
reported in 2001(3) MPLJ 616 and Jitendra Vs. State of M.P. & Others
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19542
3 WP-4049-2013
reported in 2008(4) MPLJ 670 has rightly held that the order of termination
is stigmatic in nature as the same entails serious consequences on future
prospects of respondent and therefore, the same ought to have been passed
after holding an inquiry. This Court is further supported in its view by the
judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Malkhan
Singh Malviya Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR(2018) MP 660 . It is further
submitted that the Apex Court while deciding the case of Khem Chand vs.
The Union of India and Ors. reported in 1958 SC 300, had an occasion to
summarize the concept of reasonable opportunity, relevant para of which has
been pressed into service and which reads as under:-
"(19) To summarize: the reasonable opportunity envisaged by the
provision under consideration includes-
(a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence,
which he can deny only do if he is told what the charges levelled
against him are and the allegations on which such charges are
based;
(b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the
witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any
other witnesses in support of his defence;
(c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the
proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him, which he can
only do if the competent authority, after the enquiry is over and
after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise of the charges
proved against the government servant tentatively proposes to
inflict one of the three punishments and communicates the same to
the government servant."
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that as per
policy dated June 2010, paras 2.2 and 2.3 read as under:-
"2.2 येक वष वा षक मू यांकन कया जावेगा । थम वष के अंत म
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19542
4 WP-4049-2013
सं वदा अविध पूण होने पर जले म िनयो ा ारा िनयु
अिधकार /कमचार के काय मू यांकन के ितवेदन के आधार पर
आगामी 1 वष के िलये अविध म वृ क जा सकेगी। मु यालय के पद
पर 1 वष के िलये सं वदा अविध म वृ संबंिधत योजना/काय म के
भार अिधकार ारा क जावेगी। कुल सं वदा क अविध वभाग के
अंतगत योजना/काय म क समयाविध अथवा आव यकता होने तक
सीिमत रहे गी ।
2.3 सं वदा पर िनयु अिधका रय /कमचा रय का वा षक काय-
मू यांकन संतोषजनक नह ं पाये जाने पर, उनक सेवा अविध समा
कये जाने के पूव वभाग के अंतगत सिचव/सं◌ंबंिधत योजना/काय म
के भार अिधकार क अ य ता म ग ठत कमेट का अनुमोदन िलया
जाना आव यक होगा। "
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State further submitted that as
per paras 2.2 and 2.3 of the aforesaid policy for contractual employee,
satisfactory work is required to be considered by the Committee and in the
present matter, committee has found that the work performed by the
petitioner is not in satisfactory manner, and therefore, impugned order has
been rightly passed, whereby contract period of petitioner has not been
extended and therefore, present petition is not maintainable and needs no
interference in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the present petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Vide order dated 31.05.2013 (Annexure P/1) is stigmatic in nature
as the same entails serious consequences on future prospects of respondent
and therefore, the same ought to have been passed after holding an enquiry.
The stigmatic part of the impugned order dated 31.05.2013 as quoted below:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19542
5 WP-4049-2013
''आगामी वष 2013-14 के िलए सं वदा अविध म वृ हे तु ी जय िसंह
नरव रया प रयोजना अिधकार तकनीक (सं वदा) ारा दनांक
04.05.2013 को वा षक गोपनीय ितवेदन कायालय म तुत कया है
। वा षक गोपनीय ितवेदन का काय मू यांकन िन नतम ण े ी का रहा
है ।
अत: ी जय िसंह नरव रया प रयोजना अिधकार तकनीक (सं वदा)
जला पंचायत वािलयर का काय संतोष द न होने के कारण दनांक
31.05.2013 से सं वदा सेवा समा क जाती है । तथा लेखाशाखा ी
नरव रया को माह अ ैल 2013 एवं मई 2013 क अविध के मानदे य का
भुगतान करना सुिन त कर।"
9. As per order of this Court in case of Prakash Chandra Kein Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2010 (5) M.P.H.T. 452 ,
paras 9 and 10 read as under:-
"9. In the case of Shamshersingh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1974
SC 423, it has been held by the Supreme Court that form of the
order is not conclusive and innocuously worded order can be
passed on a foundation of grave charge. In the case of State of
U.P. Vs. Ramchandra Trivedi, AIR 1976 SC 2547, it was held by
the Supreme Court, that the motive in passing an order of
termination is not a relevant factor. What is determinative is the
foundation on which it is based. It is foundation which makes the
order punitive in nature. In the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs.
Satyendra Nath Bose, National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta
and others, AIR 1999 SC 983, it has been held by the Supreme
Court that the material which amounts stigma need not be
mentioned in the order of termination of the Probationer but might
be contained in any document referred in the termination order or
in its annexures. Obviously such a document could be asked for or
called for by any future employer of the probationer. In such case,
the order of termination would stand vitiated on the ground that no
regular inquiry was conducted. In the case of Radheshyam Gupta
Vs. U.P. Industries Agro, (1999) 2 SCC 21, the Supreme Court
has held that where the termination is preceded by an enquiry and
evidence is received and findings as to misconduct or a definitive
nature are arrived at behind back of the officer and where on the
basis of such a report, the termination order is issued, such an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19542
6 WP-4049-2013
order will be violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch
as the purpose of the enquiry is to find out the truth of the
allegations with a view to punish him and not merely to gather
evidence for a future regular departmental enquiry. In such cases,
the termination is to be treated as based or founded upon
misconduct and will be punitive. In somewhat identical situation,
learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi
Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Kendra, 2001(3) Μ.Ρ.Η.Τ. 397 = 2001
(3) MPLJ 616, has quashed the termination order and held that
petitioner shall reap all the consequential benefits.
10. Having regard to the aforesaid legal position there remains no
iota of doubt that the impugned termination order dated 18-6-2005
(Annexure P-9) though, innocuously worded but is founded upon
the enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner about the
alleged misconduct. In the circumstances, the same deserves to be
and is hereby quashed. As a result, the petitioner shall be entitled
for reinstatement with all consequential benefits."
10. In view of the orders passed in the cases of Prakash Chandra
(supra), Arvind Malviya (supra) and Khem Chand (supra), and considering
that the impugned order is clearly stigmatic in nature, the writ petition
deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.05.2013
(Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate
the petitioner forthwith, and the petitioner shall be entitled for all
consequential benefits, except back wages.
11. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate fresh
proceedings against the petitioner, in accordance with law, if so advised.
12. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
