Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nighat Parveen Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30487
1 WP. No. 7457 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 26th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7457 of 2016
NIGHAT PARVEEN KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated
3/10/2016 as well as the orders dated 12/07/2016
2. The respondent no.1 has published an advertisement on 21/05/2007 for
appointment on the post of Accounts Officer in the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme(for short ... "NREGS). The petitioner being eligible has
submitted her application for appointment on the said post. She was duly
appointed on the said post vide order dated 18.12.2007 on contractual basis. The
period of contract was renewed by the respondents from time to time. Thereafter,
on the basis of some complaint, the respondent no.3 has initiated an enquiry
against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has produced a false
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30487
certificate of experience issued by M/s. S.S. Construction and verification of
PGDCPA certificate issued by All India Society for Electronic and Computer
Technology (AISECT).
3. On the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the respondent no.3, a
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20/07/2016. The petitioner has
submitted her reply to the said show cause notice on 25/07/2016. However,
without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent no.4
had passed the order dated 03/04/2016, thereby, terminating the services of the
petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the orders impugned is
illegal and arbitrary and violative of principle of natural justice. He submits that
the orders are stigmatic in nature and, therefore, the same could not have been
passed without holding any departmental enquiry. He relies upon the judgments
passed by this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha
Mission, reported in 2001 (3) MPHT 397, Rajendra Tiwari @ Raju Vs. State
of M.P. & others reported in 2005 (3) MPHT 69 and Jitendra Vs. State of
M.P. & others, reported in 2008(5) MPHT 146. He submits that the impugned
orders be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents have filed their reply and submits that
the petitioner has produced the forged certificate of experience at the time of her
appointment, therefore, the impugned orders have rightly been passed by the
authorities. It is further submitted that in the light of impugned order a criminal
case was registered in shape of crime No.563/2013 under Section 354, (A) 354
(D), 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali, District Raisen
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30487
against petitioner. It is further submitted that services of petitioner were
terminated on he basis of facts finding inquiry report and on the basis of inquiry
report, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner being not satisfied by the
reply submitted by the petitioner. Impugned order dated 3.10.2016 (Annexure
P/1) has rightly been passed in accordance with law.
6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record as well
as the orders impugned.
7. In the present case, the services of the petitioner are terminated alleging
certain illegalities in getting the appointment. The impugned termination orders
being stigmatic in nature alleging misconduct involving moral turpitude, the
same could not have been passed without holding regular departmental enquiry.
The impugned termination orders would certainly create hurdle in petitioner's
future employment. In the circumstances, before passing such an stigmatic order,
regular enquiry ought to have been conducted as observed by this Court in
various judgments.
8. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
enquiry. Since impugned order is stigmatic in nature, therefore, regular
departmental enquiry ought to have been held by 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30487
9. 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 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. 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;
(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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30487
10. The order dated 3.10.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, District
Vidisha is quoted below for ready reference and convenience:-
^^3- lqJh fuxgr ijohu [kkau }kjk fu;qfDr ds le; tks vuqHko izek.k i=
izLrqr fd;k x;k gS og QthZ ik;k x;k gSA tkap izfrosnu vuqlkj dq- fuxgr
ijohu [kkau dks esllZ ,l-,l dUVªD'ku }kjk vuqHko izek.k i= fnukad 01-01-
2001 ls 31-08-2006 rd dh vof/k dk fn;k x;k gS] tcfd mDr laLFkk 28-03-
2001 dks e-iz- nqdku ,oa LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e 1935 ds rgr iathd`r gqbZ gSA blh
izdkj vuqHkko izek.k i= laLFkk ds vfLrRo esa vkus ds iwoZ dh vof/k ls tkjh
fd;k x;k gSA lkFk gh vuqHko izek.k i= Jh cEcwjh jko }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k gS
tcfd mDr vof/k esa Jh cEcwjh jko ,l-,l dUVªD'ku ds ekfyd ugha FksA vr%
mDr vof/k dk izek.k i= Jh cEcwjh jko }kjk tkjh ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ,slh
fLFkfr esa tkjh vuqHko izek.k i= dh dksbZ oS/krk ugha gSA
4- lqJh fuxgr ijohu [kkau }kjk o"kZ 2001 dk vkbZlsDV laLFkk }kjk tkjh
ihthMhlhih, dk izek.k i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tcfd tkap izfrosnu vuqlkj
laLFkk dks o"kZ 2001 esa ;w-th-lh ls ekU;rk izkIr ugha Fkh] mDr laLFkk dks ;w-th-
lh ls ekU;rk o"kZ 2010 ds mijkar iznku dh xbZ FkhA ,slh n'kk esa vkbZlsDV
laLFkk }kjk tkjh ihthMhlhih, dk izek.k i= dh oS/krk ugha gSA
vr,o e-iz- jkT; jkstxkj xkjaVh ifj"kn Hkksiky dk i= dzekad
6334@,u-vkj-vkj-bZ-th-,l-&e-iz-@,u-vkj-&@2016 Hkksiky fnukad 12-07-2016
ds vuqlkj QthZ nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr izkIr djus dk nks"kh ik;s tkus
ds pyrs lqJh fuxgr ijohu [kkau lgk;d ys[kkf/kdkjh ¼lafonk½ eujsxk]
¼orZeku esa inLFk½ tuin iapk;r cklkSnk] ftyk fofn'kk dh lafonk lsok,sa vkt
fnukad 03-10-2016 ls rRdky izHkko ls lekIr dh tkrh gSaA ;g vkns'k rRdky
izHkko ls ykxw gksxkA^^
11. 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
conducting regular departmental enquiry. From the language of impugned order,
it is clear that it is a stigmatic termination order.
12. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30487
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."
13. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30487
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.
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."
14. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30487
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.
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.
15. 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:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30487
**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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30487
16. 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:
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.
17. As a result, the impugned orders dated 03.10.2016 (Annexure P/1) and
26.3.2016 (Annexure P/2) are hereby quashed. However, liberty is granted to
the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, if
so advised.
18. Due to interim order dated 15.12.2016 the petitioner is still continue in
service; therefore, there is no need to reinstate the petitioner. However, the
respondents are directed to extend all consequential benefits to petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30487
19. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein
above.
20. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of.
21. Pending interlocutory application, if any, are also disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Ahmad
