Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33577
1 WP-8326-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 19 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8326 of 2023
MUKESH VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ayush Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Bhatia (GA) appearing on behalf of Advocate
General/Respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging the orders dated 02/03/2023 and 03/06/2022
passed by the respondents No.3 and 4 by which services of the petitioner has been
terminated vide order dated 03/06/2022, which was upheld vide order dated
02/03/2023 in the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was working on the post of
Assistant Engineer but unfortunately he suffered from Covid-19 infection just
before the termination order was passed. The petitioner has been terminated on the
ground of some irregularities in contravention of Clause 14 of the appointment
order, which is on record as Annexure-P/3 of the petition dated 26/07/2008. Clause
14 reads as under :-
''14. सं वदा पर िनयु य के कदाचार या कसी आपरािधक
याकलाप म संिल पाये जाने पर िनयु ािधकार उसे सुनवाई का
यु यु अवसर दे ने के प ात ऐसी सं वदा िनयु समा कर सकेगा।''
3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon on Annexure-P/10 passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33577
2 WP-8326-2023
this Court in W.P. No.19867/2021 dated 04/07/2022 wherein similarly situated
employees have been granted the same benefit.
4. Case of the petitioner is that without holding any Enquiry as per Clause
14 of the appointment order, the services of petitioner cannot be terminated.
5. On going through the said Clause, it is apparent that a person involved
in misconduct, a notice shall be issued to the concerned employee and after
seeking explanation further procedure shall be followed for dispensing with his
services.
6. In the present case, without adhering Clause 14 of appointment order
the impugned termination order has been passed which is bad in law.
7 . Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner is a
Contractual employee but in such case also service of an employee cannot be
terminated without providing proper opportunity of hearing and without
conducting any Enquiry.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the judgment passed in
the case of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal & Ors.
2001(3) MPLJ 616, Jitnedra Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 2008(4) MPLJ 670, Ankit
Panchal Vs. State of M.P. and others WP No.11413/2019 dated 05/08/2019, Sanju
Singh Verma Vs. State of M.P. WP 24240/2019 dated 10/03/2022 and Omprakash
Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. WP No.23267/2019 25/04/2022.
9 . On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State contended that petitioner was contractual employee, therefore,
as per Annexure-P/3 Clause 19 of the appointment order, invoking the same by the
respondents wherein after issuance of notice for a period of one month services can
be terminated / dispensed with.
10. This Court has considered Clause 15 which is a general Clause to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33577
3 WP-8326-2023
dispense with the services of an employee in normal course but in the case in hand
under exceptional cases of misconduct / dereliction of duty, the exercise of Clause
14 is mandatory and in absence of which the action taken by the respondents
stands vitiated.
11. However, the fact remains that no Enquiry has been conducted before
passing the impugned order whereas the services of the petitioner have been
terminated on the ground of negligence in discharging of duty and misconduct. In
the case of Rahul Tripathi and Jitendra (supra) it has been categorically held that
even the services of the contractual employee cannot be terminated without
conducting regular enquiry if the order amounts to a stigma. In the case of Sanju
Singh Verma and Omprakash Gurjar (supra) this Court has set aside the order of
termination of a contract employee without holding enquiry.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order of termination is set
aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with 50%
back wages within a period of two months from the date of communication of the
order. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed with the petitioner
afresh in accordance with law if so advised.
13. Writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
Aiyer
