[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lokesh Singh Jate vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33344
1 WP. No. 6684 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 17th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6684 of 2016
LOKESH SINGH JATE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
"(i) That, the order dated 26.08.2016 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be
quashed.
(ii) That, the services of petitioner be directed to be reinstated in
service with all consequential benefits including salary etc.
(iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was
appointed on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak as per the procedure prescribed in
the policy (Annexure P/2). The appointment order dated 26.10.2010 was issued
by C.E.O, Janpad Panchyat and petitioner joined on 4.11.2010. It is further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33344
submitted that thereafter the false complaints were made against petitioner and
accordingly resolution was passed in the meeting of Gram Panchayat on
27.5.2016. It is further submitted that neither complaints nor resolution was
communicated to the petitioner. After receiving the complaints some spot
inspection was made by the authorities in which petitioner was not heard by the
authority and on the basis of exparte inspection, a show-cause notice dated
21.7.2016 was issued to petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed
reply and denied all the allegations levelled against him. It is further submitted
that thereafter, by the impugned order dated 26.08.2016 issued by the Chief
Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, the services of petitioner were terminated and
the appellate authority was the Collector. Since the Collector approved the
impugned order, petitioner directly filed the present petition before this Court. It
is further submitted that the services of petitioner were terminated without
conducting a regular departmental inquiry by passing a stigmatic, unreasoned,
and non-speaking order. It is further submitted that as per the policy, the power
to terminate the services of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak is vested in the Gram
Panchayat and the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat has no power,
authority, or jurisdiction to terminate the services of petitioner. It is further
submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order Annexure P-
1 dated 26.08.2016 is stigmatic in nature and that has been passed by the
Collector, Ashok Nagar without giving any opportunity of being heard to
petitioner and without complying the principles of natural justice, however, the
stigmatic order cannot be issued without holding a regular departmental enquiry.
Learned counsel for petitioner raised other grounds also.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33344
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, while vehemently opposing the
submissions put forth by learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that as per
condition mentioned in appointment order, the services of Gram Rozgar Sahayak
who has been appointed on contractual basis for a particular period may be
terminated even before expiry of contractual period and even without giving any
notice. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that detailed fact
finding enquiry has been conducted in respect of the complaint of negligence
committed by petitioner towards his official duties and the fact finding enquiry
report was submitted before the Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchyat and on the
basis of fact finding enquiry, Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat has passed
the impugned order.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The impugned order dated 26.8.2016 (Annexure P/1) is a stigmatic order,
relevant extract of which is reproduced below for ready reference and
convenience:- ""
**शश्री जजाट दजारजा प्रससस्तुस उत्तर ककी समश्रीकजा करनने पर पजायजा गयजा
कक शश्री जजाट दजारजा अपनने समसस पररवजार दजारजा एक सजाथ
मनरनेगजा ययोजनजा अअंसगर्गस कजायर्ग ककयजा जजानजा सथयपरक नहहअं हहै।
बबअंद स्तु क्रमजाअंक 02 ममें आवनेदक नने अपनश्री भभूल सवश्रीकजार ककी हहै
कक, उसकने दजारजा ममृस वयबक्तिययों कने मसटर जजारह ककए गए, सजाथ
हह लनेख ककयजा गयजा हहै कक मज़दरभू यों ममें ककसश्री शशिककस मजदरभू
दजारजा उपकसथशस लश्री जजासश्री हहै कजससने सपष्ट हहै कक, गजाम रयोजगजार
सहजायक दजारजा अपनने कसर्गवययों कजा पजालन नहहअं करसने हस्तुए
कजायर्गरस शशमकयों ककी उपकसथशस नहहअं भरह जजासश्री हहै , जबकक
उपकसथशस लनेनने कजा कजाम गजाम रयोजगजार सहजायक कजा हह हहै।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33344
उपकसथशस नहहअं शलयजा जजानजा शश्री जजाट ककी कसर्गवयहहनसजा प्रदशशिर्गस
करसजा हहै।
उपरयोक्ति अनस्तुसजार उत्तर समजाधजान कजारक नहहअं हयोनने कने कजारण
गजाम पअंचजायस कने प्रससजाव एवअं मस्तुखय कजायर्गपजालन अशधकजारह
जनपद पअंचजायस करजाहल कने प्रससजाव कने क्रम ममें एवअं म.प्र.
गजामश्रीण रयोजगजार गजारअंटह पररषद भयोपजाल कने पत
क्र./5335/एनआरईजश्रीएस/सथजा./एनआर-2/12 भयोपजाल
कदनजाअंक 02.06.2012 कने बबअंद स्तु क्र. 16.7 अनस्तुसजार "मस्तुखय
कजायर्गपजालन अशधकजारह कजलजा पअंचजायस शययोपस्तुर दजारजा पजाररस आदनेशि
कने क्रम ममें अशनयशमससजा एवअं कसर्गवय शनवर्गहन ममें घयोर
लजापरवजाहह प्रमजाकणस हयोनने पर सअंबवदजा सनेवजा समजाप्त ककी जजायनेगश्री"
सअंबवदजा शिसर्तों कने बबअंद स्तु क्रमजाअंक 15 अनस्तुसजार "सअंबवदजा पर शनयस्तुक्ति
वयबक्ति कने कदजाचजार एवअं आपरजाशधक कक्रयजाकलजाप ममें सअंशलप्त पजायने
जजानने पर शनयस्तुबक्ति प्रजाअशधकजारह उसने सस्तुनवजाई कजा यस्तुबक्तियस्तुक्ति
अवसर दनेनने कने पशजास ऐसश्री सअंबवदजा समजाप्त कर सकनेगजा"
सतक्रम ममें सस्तुनवजाई कजा यस्तुबक्तियस्तुक्ति अवसर प्रदजान करसने हस्तुए शश्री
लयोकनेशि जजाट ककी सअंबवदजा समजाप्त करसने हस्तुए उसने गजाम रयोजगजार
सहजायक कने पद सने पमृथक ककयजा जजासजा हहै। "
6. Before issuing impugned order dated 26.08.2016 Annexure P-1, the
responent No.4/ Zila Panchayat has neither issued any show-cause notice to
petitioner nor has any opportunity of being heard been given to him and by
stigmatic, unreasoned and non-speaking order services of petitioner have been
terminated.
7. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
enquiry. Since impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 26.08.2016 is stigmatic in
nature, therefore, regular departmental enquiry ought to have been held by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33344
respondents. The judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court 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 respondent and therefore, the
same ought to have been passed after holding a regular departmental 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. 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 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;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33344
(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. The impugned termination order has been issued without
giving any opportunity of hearing to petitioner and without conducting regular
departmental enquiry. From the language of impugned order, it is clear that it is a
stigmatic 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 an 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
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33344
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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33344
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. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.02.2024 passed in
WP.5856/2020 [Devkaran Patidar Vs. State of M.P. And others (Indore
Bench)] has also decided the similar issue in the following manner:
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
orders are illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that the respondent
no.4 without considering the provisions of 15.01, 15.02 and 16 of the
scheme according to which the respondent no.4, is not empowered to
terminate the service of the petitioner, and the aforesaid impugned
order Annexure-P/1 has been wrongly uphold. He further submits that
the respondents have acted in high handed manner and without
following the instructions/guidelines issued by the Higher
Authorities, issued the impugned termination order. Thus, the action
of the respondents is unjust and arbitrary. In the present case, neither
any charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner nor any
enquiry has been conducted before passing of the impugned stigmatic
order. In such circumstances, he prays that the impugned orders be
set aside. He further relied on the judgment passed by this Court in
the case of Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission,
Bhopal 2001 (3) MPLJ 616 and Prakash Chandra Kein vs. State of
M.P. and others 2010 (3) MPLJ 179.
5. The respondents have filed the reply and has submitted that a
number of complaints has been received against the petitioner. After
receiving the complaints a Committee was constituted for conducting
an enquiry against the petitioner and on the basis of the enquiry report
submitted by the Committee a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner and after giving opportunity to the petitioner to file reply,
the respondent has terminated the services. In such circumstances, the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33344
7. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is working on the
post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and neither any charge-sheet has been
issued to the petitioner at any point of time nor any enquiry was
conducted with the participation of the petitioner. This Court has
passed the judgment in the case of Ramchandra vs. State of M.P.
and others decided in W.P. No.16572/2014 on 02/08/2017 and
several other writ petitions on the subject are under consideration
before this Court.
8. In the light of the aforesaid as no charge-sheet was issued to
the petitioner and no enquiry has been conducted, the impugned
orders dated 12.06.2017(Annexure-P/1) and 27.08.2016(Annexure-
P/2), passed by the respondents deserves to be quashed and are
accordingly, quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service; however a liberty is granted to proceed against
the petitioner in accordance with law, in case if need so arises in
future.
13. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.04.2024 in Writ
Petition No.9065/2014 [Nilesh Vs. State of M.P. and Others - Indore Bench]
has held as under:
6. ........... The appointment was made under the directions
issued by MANREGA in which the procedure for appointment as
well as the procedure for termination are provided. Clause 15 of the
guidelines deals with appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. There is
a provision for discipline and control. Under Clause 15 (2) of the
aforesaid guidelines, the Collector is having the power to terminate
the services of Gram Rojgar Sahayak as well as under Clause 16 the
services are liable to be terminated on 8 grounds which are
reproduced as under:-
**16- lafonk lsok lekfIRk & xzke jkstxkj lgk;d dh lafonk lsok vof/k iw.kZ
gksus ds iwoZ fuEu fo'ks"k fLFkfr;ksa esa xzke iapk;r }kjk lekIr dh tk ldsaxh&
1- lsok vof/k ds nkSjku O;fDrxr ,oa ukeTkn vkijkf/kd izdj.k ds laca/k esa
izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ (FIR)@Charge gksus ij vFkok 48 ?k.Vs ls vf/kd fu:)
jgus ijA
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33344
2- vf/kd`r izf'k{k.k esa vuqifLFkr gksus vFkok izf'k{k.k dks i;kZIr dkj.k cxSj
e/; vof/k esa NksMus ij vFkok izf'k{k.k esa vU; xaHkhj ykijokgh djus ijA
3- oXkSj lwpuk ds ,d ekg ls vf/kd eq[;ky; esa vuqifLFkr gksus ijA
4- Lo;a dk R;kxi= nsus ijA
5- lacaf/kr ds ikxy@fnokfy;k ?kksf"kr gksus ijA
6- vfu;fer o =qfViw.kZ fu;qfDr izekf.kr gksus ijA
7- eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh ftyk iapk;r }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqØe esa
vfu;ferk ,oa dRRkZO; fuoZgu esa ?kksj ykijokgh izekf.kr gksus ijA
8- xzke iapk;r dk vfLrRo lekIr gksus ijA**
7. As per Clause 7 of the guidelines, in case of gross negligence
in the duty and irregularities there should be an order by Chief
Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat. Unless the charges are proved then
only Gram Rojgar Sahayak can be terminated from the service. So
far as the issuance of show cause notices is concerned these notices
were not given before proposing termination from service or
proposing imposition of any penalty, therefore, it cannot be treated as
show cause notice before the termination from service. Even in these
show cause notices very vague allegations are made about the delay
in the construction of toilets, whereas in the final order, no such
figure has been given as to how many toilets were sanctioned and
how many were not completed or constructed by the petitioner. No
such findings have been recorded and only on the basis of vague
allegations about negligence in duty, the petitioner has been
terminated. Therefore, the order not only suffers from violation of
principles of natural justice but it is a stigmatic order.
8. In the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission reported in 2001
(3) MPLJ 616, that the order is unsustainable in law.
14. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.10.2019 in Writ
Petition No.7916/2019 [Mahesh Kumar Maru S/o Bhagirah Maru Vs. State
of M.P. and others - Indore Bench] has held as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33344
6. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is working on
the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and neither any chargesheet has
been issued to the petitioner at any point of time nor any enquiry was
conducted with the participation of the petitioner. This Court in the
case of Ramchandra vs. State of M.P. and others decided in W.P.
No.16572/2014 on 02/08/2017 several other writ petition on the
subject under consideration before this Court in the present petition.
7. So far availability of the alternative remedy is concerned, the
impugned stigmatic order of termination has been passed contrary to
the settled law and without following the principle of natural justice.
Hence, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Whirlpool Corporation and other vs. RegistrarTrade Mark and others
reported in AIR 1999 SC 22 alternative remedy is no bar for filing a
petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
8. In the light of the aforesaid as no charge-sheet was issued to
the petitioner and no enquiry has been conducted, the impugned
order dated 22/02/2019 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondents
deserves to be quashed and is accordingly, quashed. The respondents
are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service; however a liberty is
granted to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, in
case if need so arises in future.
15. Petitioner stated that he will not be negligent in future and he will
discharge his duties with utmost sincerity is a simple undertaking and by this
undertaking petitioner has not admitted the alleged misconduct. Petitioner has
stated, as per impugned order, that he admitted his mistake and admitting mistake
is different to admit the misconduct as per judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of S.D. Bind Vs. Union of India &
Others mistake and carelessness cannot be included in misconduct. The relevant
para of case of S.D. Bind (supra) reads as under:
"15 That apart, another aspect of the matter warrants
consideration. The irregularities which is found against the
petitioner is only non following of certain procedure in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33344
matter of awarding contract. The question is as to whether such
an irregularity in the matter of following the procedure can be
termed as a misconduct. The Supreme Court has considered the
aforesaid aspect in the case of Union of India v. J. Ahmed
(AIR 1979 SC 1022) which has been followed again by the
Supreme Court in the case of Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt.
of National Capital Territory of Delhi and others [(2007) 4
SCC 1022]; wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that
merely lack of efficiency, failure to attain the highest standard
of administrative ability or negligent or careless wat of dealing
with a matter on one isolated may not constituted a misconduct
for which punishment can be imposed.
16. In the present case apart from the fact that the Division
Bench has made the observations as reproduced herein above
and interfered with the imposition of cost, it found that there
was certain discrepancy in the guidelines laid down and,
therefore, in paragraph 9 fresh guidelines for future action was
issued. Once this is the factual scenario then merely because the
petitioner failed to follow the guidelines for once, it cannot be
said that the petitioner has committed misconduct in the matter.
At best action of the petitioner may fall in the category of
careless or negligence in the matter of dealing with the case
once an isolated occasion and if the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court as indicated in the case of J. Ahmed (supra) is
applied, we are of the considered view that allegations levelled
even do not amount to misconduct for which action can be
taken.
17. As the Tribunal has ignored all these aspects, it is a fit case
where interference should be made and entire action of the
department is quashed."
16. In light of aforesaid discussion, it is seen that no charge-sheet was issued
to petitioner and no regular departmental enquiry has been conducted and the
impugned stigmatic order has been passed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33344
17. Considering the aforesaid pronouncements, entire gamut of the matter and
also the fact that the present petition is covered by order dated 25.04.2022 passed
in W.P.No.23267/2019 (Omprakash Gurjar Vs. Panchayat and Rural
Development & Ors.), the impugned termination order dated 26.8.2016
(Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. As the petitioner has been continuing on the
strength of interim order dated 21.09.2016, there is no need to direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner, however, respondent/State would be at
liberty to proceed against petitioner in accordance with law, in case if need so
arises in future.
18. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of.
19. Pending interlocutory applications (if any) are disposed of also.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
ahmad
