Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shambhudayal Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26479
1 WP-6382-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6382 of 2014
SHAMBHUDAYAL SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Dudawat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) Issuing a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or
order or Direction for quashing the impugned order dated
04.10.2014 (Annexure P/8) passed by respondent no. 3 with
further direction not to interfere in the working of the petitioner.
(ii) Passing any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
(ii) Cost of the petition may also be awarded to the
petitioner.
2. That, the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Gram Rozgar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26479
2 WP-6382-2014
Sahayak of Village Panchayat Muhar, Pichore District Shivpuri vide order
dated 19.09.2013. Since then petitioner was performing his duties of Gram
Rozgar Sahayak with utmost sincerity and honesty and that petitioner was
continuously discharging his duties on the aforesaid post without there-being
any gap. However, One Shri Nathuram Jatav has made a complaint against
the petitioner alleging that he is not making the payment of cost of 1100
bricks to his family members and not issuing ration slip to him. The
complainant had applied for obtaining 5 kg grains at lower price under the
Samagra Family Scheme, which was duly forwarded to its office situated at
Bhopal. Infact the said ration slip is not issued by the competent authority
situated at Bhopal since the complainant is not found eligible for the same,
which is evident from the current status obtained from the web portal www
samagra govt. in. Thereafter, the family members of the complainant is
getting the benefit under the said scheme and slips have been given to them,
which is evident from the receipt, Annexure-P/4. When the fact was brought
in the knowledge of complainant, he submitted an application before the
respondent no. 4 thereby withdrawing the complaint alongwith the
affidavit.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in spite of withdrawal
of complaint, respondent No.4 has issued show-cause notice to petitioner
which was duly being replied by him by reply (Annexure P/7). He further
submitted that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner,
non-speaking and unreasoned impugned order dated 4.10.2014 was issued by
respondent No.3 by which services of petitioner have been terminated. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26479
3 WP-6382-2014
said order is stigmatic in nature. This type of order cannot be issued without
holding regular departmental enquiry.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the
impugned order has been issued after giving show-cause notice to petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent further submitted that as per clause No. 15
and 17 of appointment order dated 19th of September, 2013 services of
petitioner have been terminated by the impugned order after affording
opportunity of being heard.
5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
The impugned termination order, dated 4.10.2014, is stigmatic in
nature, non-speaking, and lacks reasoning as well. The relevant portion is
quoted below:
"
ी नाथूराम जाटव, िनवासी ाम मुहार, ाम पंचायत मुहार ारा
सी.एम. हे पलाइन म ी श भू दयाल शमा ाम रोजगार सहायक
(सं वदा) ारा कये गए ाचार क िशकायत क जांच के म म
कायालयीन प मांक 5354 दनांक 22.09.2014 ारा कारण बताओं
सूचना प जार करते हुए िशकायतकता के िल खत कथन अनुसार उधार
ली गई 1100 इं ट को भुगतान िशकायतकता को न करते हुए उसका
भुगतान उसक मॉं एवं उसके छोटे भाई क राशन पच दे ने म
समायो जत करना बताया गया।
ी शमा ारा दनांक 24.09.2014 कारण बताओं सूचना प का तुत
उ र एवं उसके संल न िशकायतकता का िशकायत वापस लेने का शपथ
प समाधानकारक न होने के कारण एतद ारा ी श भू दयाल शमा,
ाम रोजगार सहायक (सं वदा) को त काल भाव से सेवा से पृथक
कया जाता है । "
6. The impugned order is non-speaking and unreasoned, failing to
consider the petitioner's detailed reply (Annexure P-7). Furthermore, the
order is stigmatic in nature and was issued without holding a regular
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26479
4 WP-6382-2014
departmental enquiry. Since the petitioner denied the allegations in the show-
cause notice, the alleged misconduct could only be proven through a
departmental enquiry where the petitioner had the opportunity of being
heard.
7. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
enquiry. Since impugned order dated 4.10.2014 is stigmatic in nature,
therefore, regular departmental enquiry ought to have been held by
respondents. The judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench 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.).
8. 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 . It is further submitted that 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26479
5 WP-6382-2014
reasonable opportunity, relevant para of which has been pressed into service
and 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."
9. 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 departmental enquiry. From the language of impugned
order, it is clear that it is a stigmatic termination order.
10. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26479
6 WP-6382-2014
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."
11. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26479
7 WP-6382-2014
20.06.2018 (Annexure-P-9) are set aside."
12. On the basis of aforesaid, impugned termination order dated
4.10.2014 is hereby quashed.
13. However, respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the
petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised.
14. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
ar
