Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Dangi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34656
1 WP-5554-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 27th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5554 of 2014
JAGDISH DANGI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Kumar Vijaywargiya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghav Shivastava (GA) appearing on behalf of Advocate
General/Respondent No.1/State.
Shri Akash Rathi - Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 4.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India being aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure-P/6)
passed by respondent No.2, whereby the services of the petitioner has been
terminated and order dated 16.06.2014 (Annexure-P/10) passed by
respondent No.1, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by
affirming the order dated 18.03.2014.
3. The facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued for the
post of Gram Rojghar Sahayak. The petitioner was appointed on the post of
Gram Rojghar Sahayak. By the impugned order dated 18.03.2014, the
services of the petitioner has been terminated by Secretary, Gram Panchayat,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34656
2 WP-5554-2014
Jamonya, Janpad Panchayat, Khilchipur on the ground that the petitioner has
been found gross negligent in discharging of his duties for verification work
of beneficiaries under the mission.
4. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an application for
reconsideration of same. The same was also dismissed on the ground that the
same was preferred after expiration of period of limitation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the
petitioner are governed by the M.P. State Employment Guarantee Council,
Bhopal, which has been issued by Panchayat and Rural Development
Department. As per the circular, the competent authority for termination on
the post of Gram Rojghar Sahayak is Collector. He has referred clause 15.2
of the said scheme.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioner was appointed on contract
basis and his services have been terminated by stigmatic order without
holding any regular inquiry.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State raises preliminary
objection that the present petition is filed without exhausting alternative
remedy of appeal as provided under the scheme under Clause 17. The
petitioner ought to have exhausted the remedy of appeal before filling the
petition.
8. The petitioner challenged his termination order dated 18/03/2014
before the Collector and on 16/06/2014 the Collector dismissed the said
petition and affirmed the order dated 18/03/2014 passed by the Secretary,
Gram Panchayat, Jamodiya, Janpad Panchayat, Khichipur.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34656
3 WP-5554-2014
9. Heard the parties at length.
10. This Court is of the view that it was incumbent upon the petitioner
to pursue the statutory remedy before the Commissioner, instead of doing so,
the petitioner directly approached this Court. Nevertheless, in view of the
fact that the present matter has remained pending since 2014, this Court is
not inclined to relegate the petitioner to avail alternative remedy, since a pure
question of law is involved in the present case.
11. Furthermore, the core issue that arises for consideration before
this Court is the competency of the authority who passed the order of
termination. This Court undoubtedly possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate
upon that question under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
12. Upon perusal of the impugned order of termination it is
axiomatic that the impugned order has been issued on the allegation of gross
negligence in discharging of duties in verification work. Admittedly, the
impugned order is passed by Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jamonya, Janpad
Panchayat, Khilchipur. As per Clause 15.2, the power is conferred to the
Collector and he is the authority to terminate the services of Gram Rojghar
Sahayak. The respondents have failed to show any provisions which
permitted the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jamonya, Janpad Panchayat,
Khilchipur to terminate the services of the Gram Rojghar Sahayak. They
have also not filed any order of delegation of power to the Secretary, Gram
Panchayat, Jamonya, Janpad Panchayat, Khilchipur to terminate the services
of the petitioner. The petitioner was a contractual employee and his services
has been terminated by stigmatic order without holding any inquiry in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34656
4 WP-5554-2014
matter.
13. The Apex Court in the case of Jitendra V/s. State of M.P. &
Others 2008 (4) MPLJ 670 and also the judgment passed by a coordinate
bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha
Mission, Bhopal [2001 (3) M.P.L.J. 616] wherein it has been held that if the
order of termination is stigmatic, it cannot be regarded as termination
simpliciter and, therefore, the same cannot be passed without holding
inquiry. He has also placed reliance on the order dated 10.05.2019 passed by
the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.402/2019 (The Mission Director,
National Health Mission, Bhopal vs. Mukesh Yadav and Ors.) . He also
referred the judgment passed by the D.B. in the case of Mission Director,
RCH/RCH/NRHM vs. Ranjit Jain & Anr. [2011(4) M.P.H.T. 266] . He also
cited the orders passed by coordinate Bench dated 13.03.2019 passed in W.P.
No.8682/2018 (Kishan Singh Dudwe vs. State of MP & Ors.) and also the
order dated 04.07.2022 passed in WP No.19867/2021 (Madhav Awasya vs.
State of MP & Ors) and order dated 25.04.2022 passed in WP
No.23267/2019 (Omprakash Gurjar vs. Panchayat and Rural Development &
Ors.). In the aforesaid cases, it has been held that in the cases of termination
of service of contractual employee, the order of termination which is
stigmatic in nature cannot be regarded as a termination simpliciter and,
therefore, the services cannot be terminated without conducting regular
inquiry.
14. In view of the aforesaid itself, it is settled law that the services of
contract employee and Gram Rojghar Sahayak cannot be terminated by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34656
5 WP-5554-2014
stigmatic order without holding any inquiry. Further the order is without
jurisdiction therefore, the objection raised by the respondent No.1/State
regarding alternative remedy cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, the
alternative remedy is not absolute bar in exercising jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the order impugned is
without jurisdiction.
15. The petition is allowed, the orders dated 18/03/2014 (Annexure-
P/6) and 16/06/2014 (Annexure-P/10) are hereby quashed and the petitioner
is directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages reserving the
liberty to the respondents to take action against the petitioner, if desired so,
in accordance with the law.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
Aiyer
