[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Jaidevi Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33211
1 WP. No. 4672 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 16th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4672 of 2017
KU. JAIDEVI SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.K. Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):-
"7.1 The impugned order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the
Respondent No.3 vide Annexure-P-1 kindly be quashed as the same
is not sustainable, in law.
7.2 Any other just and proper relief warranting under the facts and
circumstances of the case be also given to the Petitioners, in the ends
of justice."
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was initially
appointed by order dated 09.10.2012 as Gram Rojgar Sahayak in the Gram
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33211
Panchayat Supawali Janpad Panchayat Morar, District- Gwalior (M.P.) on
contract basis. On 08.11.2016, a complaint was lodged against petitioner before
the Collector by the residents of Gram Panchayat Supawali with allegations of
illicit demand of Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- for the construction of toilets in the
said village and also for the illegal transfer of funds in the construction of toilets
and further there was also an allegation of transfer of money in the accounts of
those persons who had not constructed the toilet in the said village. Thereafter on
25.03.2017, a show-cause notice was issued against petitioner by the Chief
Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Gwalior stating five charges. Petitioner
submitted detailed reply dated 28.03.2017. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued
impugned stigmatic, non-speaking, unreasoned termination order. Learned
counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioner performs her duty with
honesty and full dedication and has never done any illicit demand of construction
of toilets from the residents of the village. For that purpose, statements in shape
of Annexure P-6 given by local villagers have been filed. Learned counsel for
petitioner further submitted that a fact-finding enquiry has been conducted
behind the back of petitioner and only statement of petitioner has been recorded
at the time of enquiry and statements of other persons like complainant and
villagers were not recorded in front of petitioner and no opportunity of cross-
examination could be provided to petitioner and on the basis of such enquiry
show-cause notice was issued which was replied by petitioner in detail. But no
facts and grounds mentioned in the said reply have been considered and
stigmatic, non-speaking, unreasoned termination order dated 11.07.2017
(Annexure P-1) has been issued by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat
Morar.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33211
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State submits that after giving
show cause notice, services of petitioner were terminated and as per Clause Nos.
15 and 17 of the appointment order dated 09.10.2012, the services of the
petitioner have been terminated after affording an opportunity of hearing, which
reads as under:
**15- lafonk ij fu;qDr O;fDr ds dnkpkj ;k fdlh vkijkf/kd fØ;kdyki esa lafyIr
ik;s tkus ij fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh mls lquokbZ dk ;qfDr;qDr volj nsus ds i'pkr~ ,slh
lafonk fu;qfDr lekIr dj ldsxkA
17- lafonk fu;qfDr ij fu;qDr vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh dh lsok,a fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds iwoZ laLFkk
n~okjk fcuk fdlh uksfVl ds lekIr dh tk ldsxhA**
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The impugned termination order dated 11.07.2017 is stigmatic in nature
and relevant part of the aforesaid order reads as under:-
dk;kZy; tuin iapk;r eqjkj ftyk Xokfy;j e0iz0
Øekad@t0ia0@eujsxk@2017 3131 eqjkj fnukad 11@07@17
@@vkns'k@@
dq0 t;nsoh 'kekZ xzke jkstxkj lgk;d xzke iapk;r lqikoyh }kjk LoPN Hkkjr fe'ku
vfHk;ku ds varxZr 'kkSpky; dh 'kklu }kjk ns; vuqnku dh jkf'k :i;s 2000 ls 6000
rd dh jkf'k dh olwyh lEca/k tulquokbZ Øekad 5185 fnukad 08-11-16 dks çkIr gqbZA
izkIr tulquokbZ ds vk/kkj ij Jherh vpZuk flag tknkSu Cy‚d leUo;d LoPN Hkkjr
fe'ku }kjk f'kdk;r dh tkap dh xbZA tkap çfrosnu vuqlkj xzke jkstxkj lgk;d dq0
t;nsoh 'kekZ ,oa muds HkkbZ Jh uoy rFkk firk Jh fxjkZt 'kekZ }kjk xzke iapk;r ds
fgrxzkfg;ksa ls voS/k :i ls #i;s 2000@& ls 6000@& çfr 'kkSpky; olwy dj
fgrxzkfg;ksa ds [kkrksa esa 'kkSpky; fuekZ.k dh jkf'k gLrkarj.k djrh gS] lR; ik;k x;kA
fgrxzkfg;ksa ds 'kklu }kjk cus dbZ o"kksaZ iwoZ ds 'kkSpky;ksa ,oa ftu fgrxzkfg;ksa us ekSds ij
dksbZ 'kkSpky; dk fuekZ.k ugha fd;k x;k gSA muds [kkrs esa Hkh jkf'k dq- t;nsoh 'kekZ
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33211
}kjk fu;e fo#) rjhds ls Hksth xbZ gSA mä f'kdk;r lR; ikbZ xbZA dq- t;nsoh 'kekZ
dk mä --R; vkfFkZd vfu;ferrk dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA
mä tkap çfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh ftyk iapk;r }kjk dkj.k
crkvks lwpuk i= Øekad @ftåia0@2016&17 Xokfy;j fnukad 25-03-17 tkjh fd;k
x;k ftldk tckc dqå t;nsoh 'kekZ }kjk fnukad 28-03-17 dks ftyk dk;kZy; esa çLrqr
fd;k x;kA eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh ftyk iapk;r dk;kZy; esa çLrqr fd;k x;kA eq[;
dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh ftyk iapk;r }kjk i=
Øekad@iapkåçdkså@ftåiaå@2016&17@4599 Xokfy;j fnukad 28-06-17 }kjk vk;qä
eåçå jkT; jkstxkj xkjaVh ifj"kn ds i= Øekad
3729@,uvkjbZth,l&eåçå@LFkkå@,uvkj& 2@17 Hkksiky fnukad 03-06-17 esa fn;s
funsZ'kkuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus gsrq ys[k fd;k gSA
dq-t;nsoh 'kekZ }kjk fn;s x;s mÙkj dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k] tks fd lek/kku dkjd ugh
ik;k x;kA dq-t;nsoh 'kekZ }kjk vkfFkZd vfu;ferrk dh tk dj lafonk lsok 'krksZa ¼e-iz-
jkT; jkstxkj xkajVh ifj"kn ds i= Ø-@5335@,u-vkj-bZ-th-,l- e-ç-@LFkk@,u-
vkj&2@12 Hkksiky fnukad 02-06-2012 dh dafMdk&16½ dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA vr%
dq- t;nsoh 'kekZ xzke jkstxkj lgk;d xzke iapk;r lqikoyh ds lkFk dh xbZ lafonk
rRdky çHkko ls lekIr dh tkrh gSA
bl vkns'k ds rRdky mijkar dq- t;nsoh 'kekZ xzke lqikoyh ds xzke jkstxkj lgk;d ds
in ij ugha jgsaxhA
vkns'k rRdky izHkko ls ykxw gksXkkA
eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh
tuin iapk;r eqjkj
6 From perusal of record, it is clear that petitioner has not admitted alleged
misconduct and alleged misconduct can be proved only by holding the regular
department enquiry in which petitioner is also given an opportunity of being
heard.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33211
7. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
regular departmental enquiry. Since impugned order dated 11.07.2017 (Annexure
P-1) is stigmatic in nature, therefore, regular departmental enquiry ought to have
been held by respondents. 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.) are worth mentioning.
8. The 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 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 employee and therefore, the
same ought to have been passed after holding a regular departmental enquiry.
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
AIR 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-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33211
(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."
9. From the aforesaid, it is clear that impugned order is stigmatic in nature,
therefore, without conducting regular departmental enquiry impugned order
cannot be issued by respondents. The impugned termination order has been
issued without departmental enquiry. From the language of impugned order, it is
clear that it is a stigmatic, non-speaking, unreasoned termination order.
10. It is settled position that if the order of termination is stigmatic in nature,
the same entails serious consequences on future prospects of the petitioner and
therefore the same ought to have been passed after holding a regular
departmental enquiry. In Arvind Malviya (supra), it is held 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33211
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."
11. The Division Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jabalpur, in the case of
Rajesh Kumar Rathore vs. High Court of M.P. and another (W.P. No.18657
of 2018) vide order dated 23/11/2021 has held as under:
"6. The short question of law involved in the present case is as to
whether the services of an employee under the Rules relating to
Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Contingency Paid (District
and Sessions Judge Establishment) Employees Rules, 1980, can be
terminated without conducting a departmental enquiry when an order
of termination casts stigma on the employee.
7. We are in full agreement with the legal position expounded in
various judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent. However, in the instant case, the question that arise for
consideration, as stated above, is squarely covered by the decision of
co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Pal Vs. District
& Sessions Judge, Morena (supra). In the present case, it is an
admitted fact that neither charge-sheet was issued nor departmental
enquiry was conducted and order of termination attributes dereliction
of duty amounting to misconduct, and hence, the same is clearly
stigmatic order. The petitioner's services are admittedly governed
under the Rules of 1980. If the facts and situation of the present case is
examined in the context of the facts and situation of the case of
Krishna Pal (supra), it is found that this Court had taken a view (para-
5 of the said judgment) that Normally when the services of a temporary
employee or a probationer or contingency paid employee is brought to
an end by passing innocuous order due to unsatisfactory nature of
service or on account of an act for which some action is taken, but the
termination is made in a simplicitor manner without conducting of
inquiry or without casting any stigma on the employee, the provisions
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33211
of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980 can be taken aid of. However, when the
termination is founded on acts of commission or omission, which
amounts to misconduct. Such an order casts stigma on the conduct,
character and work of the employee and hence, the principle of natural
justice, opportunity of hearing and inquiry is requirement of law.
8. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law, we are not inclined
to take a different view, therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the
impugned order dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure-P-6) and order dated
20.06.2018 (Annexure-P-9) are set aside."
12. In view of foregoing discussion, the impugned termination order dated
11.07.2017 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and consequently, the respondents
are directed to re-instate the petitioner along-with consequential benefits except
back wages on the principle of "No Work No Pay". However, the respondents
shall be at liberty to proceed against petitioner in accordance with law, if so
advised.
13. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of in above terms.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
