Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raja Khangraly vs Tribal Welfare Department on 14 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30157
1 WP-3728-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3728 of 2021
RAJA KHANGRALY
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Singh Bhati learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Romil Verma learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, challenging the order dated 09.02.2021 issued by respondent no.5,
whereby the services of the petitioner on the post of Peon as daily rated
employee have been terminated on the ground of grave misconduct.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner has been working as Daily
Wages Peon under the Respondent Department and posted at Government
Divisional Scheduled Cast Residential School, Morod, District Indore. The
Petitioner was initially appointed on 11.08.2009 and since then he is working
as Daily Wager Peon. The petitioner has been performing his duties sincerely
and diligently but on 18.12.2020 a showcause notice was given to the
petitioner levelling three allegations that he has demanded illegal
gratification from one Mr. Ajay Ghawri who is already working as part time
sweeper in the School, second allegation was levelled regarding bills of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30157
2 WP-3728-2021
grocery store which contains signature of wife of the Petitioner alleging that
the Petitioner produced fake bill vouchers for payment and third allegation
was levelled regarding supply of internal official letter to the complainant
Mr.Ajay Ghawri. By serving the above show cause, only two days time was
given to the Petitioner to submit reply of above show cause. The Petitioner
submitted the reply to the above show cause notice on dated 21.12.2020 by
specifically denying the allegations levelled. On 21.12.2020 itself, the wife
of the Petitioner, who is a proprietor of Jagrati Kirana Store has also
submitted an explanation regarding charge no. 2.
The show cause notice and impugned order have been issued as per
the provisions of M.P. Daily Wages Employee (Condition of Services)
Rules, 2013 alleging violation of Rule 10 (b), (c) (d) and holding the
Petitioner guilty of misconduct and his services has been terminated but the
Rules 11 (1) (b) and Rule 11(2) of the above Rules specifically provides that
the major punishment shall be given if the charges are proved against the
delinquent employee and it further provides that for termination, the
Controlling Officer shall pass speaking reasonable and crystal clear order,
mentioning the reasons for such termination. In the present case, no such
exercise has been completed by the Respondents before passing the
impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the
petitioner has been terminated on the alleged misconduct. The impugned
order is a stigmatic order and the order has been passed without holding any
inquiry.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30157
3 WP-3728-2021
Learned counsel for the respondent/state supported the impugned
order and submitted that the petitioner was working as a Labourer on daily
rated and his services have been terminated as per condition no.10 of the
GAD circular dated 18.12.2020.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
impugned order, this Court finds that the services of the petitioner on daily
wages have been terminated by a stigmatic order on the serious allegations.
Admittedly, no inquiry has been held in the matter and the inquiry which has
been reflected in the impugned order would not amount to an inquiry before
the passing the order of termination.
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
i n 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30157
4 WP-3728-2021
& 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 a 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 a regular
inquiry.
A co-ordinate Bench in the case of Rajdeep Singh Vs. State of M.P.
(W.P.No. 10255/2023) relying on the order passed in the case of Omprakash
Gurjar (supra) has also set aside the order and directed to payment of 50%
backwages.
The same view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No. 654/2025 (Kailash Hada Vs. State of M.P. and others) and 2 WP-
23125-2024 in W.A.No. 163/2025 (State of M.P. Vs. Ajay Vanshpal) and
the Apex Court in the case of Swati Priyadarshini Vs. State of M.P., 2024
SCC Online 2139. In the case of Malkhan Singh Malviya Vs. State of M.P.,
ILR (2018) MP 660 this Court held that the order of termination of a Gram
Rojgar Sahayak appointed on a contract basis cannot be terminated by a
stigmatic order without holding any enquiry.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
The impugned order of termination dated 04.02.2021 is quashed. The
respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service, but without
backwages, as this court is remanding the matter back to the competent
authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after holding an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30157
5 WP-3728-2021
inquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the
competent authority may pass a fresh order in accordance with law after
holding an inquiry.
With the aforesaid, the present petition is partly allowed and disposed
of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
