Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radha Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 14 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25995
1 WP-7657-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7657 of 2015
RADHA BAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.K.Sharma - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - learned Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the impugned order 24.9.2015 Annex. P/1 and
30.9.20215 Annex. P/2 may kindly be quashed.
(ii) That, respondents may kindly be directed to grant all the
privileges to the petitioner.
(iii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may
deem fit, with cost of the petition."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the year 2006
respondent No.3 had invited the names from the Gram Panchayat for
appointing the trained Asha worker for every village. Accordingly Gram
Panchyat Madhi forwarded the name of the petitioner for training in which
petitioner took part from 10.6.2006 to 16.6.2006. On the basis of trained
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25995
2 WP-7657-2015
worker in the year 2008, concerning Gram Panchayat vide its resolution
dated 26.1.2008 authorized the petitioner under health program as Asha
worker. On 9.3.2015 as per the instructions of respondent No.2, a camp was
organized in village Kaswa Madhi pertaining to programme for eradication
of malnutrition which was attended by a number of doctors and Asha
workers. Petitioner also attended same but unfortunately one child namely
Preeti accidentally died due to administration of Zink tablet by her
grandmother by putting finger in her mouth. In the camp, despite
availability of doctors, nurses and Asha Workers, child Preeti could not be
saved. Without there being any fault on the part of petitioner, respondent
No.2 issued a notice to her levelling allegations. The petitioner immediately
filed reply refuting the allegations. However, respondent No.2 without even
enquiring about the truth by instituting a regular departmental inquiry,
without considering the reply submitted by petitioner to the show cause
notice and on the basis of report lodged by the parents of deceased child,
terminated services of the petitioner by passing a stigmatic order. Learned
counsel for petitioner further submits that the impugned termination order
has been issued without holding any regular Departmental inquiry and while
issuing the impugned order, the reply has not even been considered by the
respondent-authority.
3. Per contra- learned counsel for respondents/State submits that
petitioner being Asha Karyakarta is not entitled to get any salary or wages on
monthly basis from the respondents. As per rules which govern the service
conditions of Aasha Karyakarta, they are only entitled to receive honorarium
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25995
3 WP-7657-2015
piecemeal basis meaning thereby they are paid for each work they complete
in a month. It is further submitted that before issuing order under challenge,
the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. It is further submitted that
the post of Aasha Karyakarta is not a civil post, it is purely a temporary post.
The respondents have only stopped the future assignments or work from the
petitioner in the interest of public at large because due to the fault of
petitioner, the girl child namely Preeti had expired. Hence, learned
Government Advocate prays for dismissal of present petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The impugned order dated 24.9.2015 (Annexure P/1) is a stigmatic
order and the relevant part of it is reproduced below for ready reference and
convenience:-
" वषयांतगत दनांक 09.03.2015 को ाम कं बामढ म आयो जत
कुपोषण िनवारण िश वर म बािलका क दाद ारा ु टपूण तर के से
जंक टे बलेट खलाने के कारण कुं0 ीित बाई पु ी ी मुकेश अ हरवार
क बामढ क दख ु द मृ यु हुई थी।
अत: ीमित राधाबाई आशा कायकता ाम क बामढ को काय म क
गई गंभीर लापरवाह के कारण पद से पृथक करने का िनणय िलया गया
है । त काल इस वषयक कायवाह करते हुये इस कायालय को भी
अबगत कराना सुिन त कर।"
कले टर
जला गुना (म0 0)
गुना दनांक 24.09.2015
6. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
regular Departmental enquiry. Since impugned order dated 24.9.2015 (Annexure
P-1) is stigmatic in nature, therefore, regular departmental enquiry ought to have
been held by respondents. In this regard, the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25995
4 WP-7657-2015
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.
7. 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
have 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 enquiry. This
Court is further supported in its view by judgment passed by the 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 has been pressed into service, 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25995
5 WP-7657-2015
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."
8. 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 giving any proper opportunity of hearing to
petitioner without departmental enquiry. From the language of impugned
order, it is clear that it is a stigmatic termination order.
9. 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."
10. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25995
6 WP-7657-2015
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.
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."
11. Taking into consideration the 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 24.09.2015
(Annexure P/1) and order dated 30.9.2015 (Annexure P/2) are hereby set
aside.
12. Vide order dated 5.11.2015, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
had stayed impugned termination order dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure P/1) and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25995
7 WP-7657-2015
order dated 30.9.2015 (Annexure P/2); therefore, there is no need to reinstate
the petitioner. However, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed
against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised.
13. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
