Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Seema Yadav vs State Of M.P on 27 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26847
1 WP-3404-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 27th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3404 of 2012
SMT.SEEMA YADAV
Versus
STATE OF M.P
Appearance:
Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri M.S. Jadon - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
"(i) That, the order dt.12.09.2011 annexure P/1 be directed to set
aside.
(ii) That, the order dt.09.04.2012 annexure P/2 be directed to set
aside.
(iii) That, the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in
service on the post of Anganwadi Worker, in Anganwadi Centre
Ward No.14, Pichhor, Distt. Shivpuri with all consequential
benefits.
(iv) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that by the
impugned stigmatic, non-speaking and unreasoned order services of
petitioner (an Aanganwadi Karyakarta) have been terminated. It is further
submitted that Annexure P-1 dated 12.09.2011 is stigmatic in nature.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26847
2 WP-3404-2012
Respondent No.4 issued a show-cause notice to petitioner. Petitioner
submitted her detailed reply to the said show-cause notice, however, before
issuance of impugned termination order the facts and grounds mentioned in
the said reply were not at all considered by respondent No.4. Learned
counsel for petitioner, while challenging predominantly the order impugned
to the effect that stigmatic order cannot be issued without holding a regular
departmental enquiry, also raised other grounds on merits. It is further
submitted that the Appellate Authority i.e., Collector, Shivpuri has also not
considered the aforesaid ground and rejected the appeal by non-speaking and
unreasoned order dated 09.04.2012 (Annexure P/2).
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, while vehemently
opposing the submissions put forth by learned counsel for petitioner,
submitted that as per Condition of the appointment order, the services of
petitioner may be terminated even without giving any notice.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
5. The impugned order dated 12.09.2011 (Annexure P/1) is a stigmatic
order, which is reproduced below:-
आदे श
बनाम ीमती सीमा यादव (AWW) वाड क. 14 अ पछार
म. . शासन मं ालय म हला एवं बाल वकास वभाग के ापन ./ एफ-32/2006/50-2, भोपाल
दनांक 10.07.2007 के दशा िनदशानुसार आपके ारा आंगनबाड़ के का संचालन नह ं कया जा
रहा है । अनु वभागीय अिधकार राज व पछोर ारा दनांक 26.08.2011 को आपने आंगनबाड़
के पछोर वाड . 14 अ का नर ण कया गया, जसम िन न अिनयिमतताय पाई गई-
1. आपका आंगनबाड़ के लगातार एक माह से बंद है ।
2. बना कायालय क वीकृ ित िलये आंगनबाड़ के वयं के मकान म थाना त रत कया गया।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26847
3 WP-3404-2012
3. आंगनबाड़ के पर 0 से 6 माह एवं 3 वष तक के ब चे एवं कशोर बािलकाओं, गभवती धा ी
माताओं को पोषण आहार नह ं दया गया, जब क वभाग ारा ितमाह पोषण आहार दया जाता है ।
4. वष 2011 म लाडली ल मी योजना का आपके ारा कसी भी हत ाह को लाभ नह ं पहुच
ं ा है ।
5. कायालयीन प दनांक 07.07.2011 प . 148 दनांक 16.08.2011 के ारा आपको नो टस
दया गया ले कन आपके ारा कोई जबाब िल खत प म नह ं दया गया। प . 1808 दनाक
26.08.2011 का जबाब आपके ारा तुत कया गया। जबाब संतोषजनक न होने के कारण
एस.ड .एम. पछोर ारा पद से पृथक करने क कायवाह हे तु कायालय को दया गया है ।
आपके ारा लगातार शासन के िनदश क अवहे लना करने के कारण आपको पद से पृथक कया
जाता है । यह आदे श त काल भावशील होगा।
(अनु वभागीय अिधकार प रयोजना अिधकार
राज व पछोर से अनुमो दत) म हला एवं बाल वकास वभाग
पछोर, जला िशवपुर (म. )
6. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
enquiry. Since impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 12.09.2011 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.
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26847
4 WP-3404-2012
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."
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. The impugned termination order has been issued
without giving any proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner and without
conducting 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26847
5 WP-3404-2012
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 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 (para5 of the said judgment) that Normally
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26847
6 WP-3404-2012
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. 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.
5. The respondents have filed the reply and has submitted that a
number of complaints has been received against the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26847
7 WP-3404-2012
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(AnnexureP/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."
12. The policy of the State Government dated 27.05.2006 provides for
removal of Aanganwadi Worker from services and the same clearly reflects
that Project Officer/other higher officer of department of Women & Child
Development cannot discontinue without holding an enquiry, relevant extract
of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-
आँ गनबाड़ कायकता को पद से हटाने क याः-
1. य द सहयोिगनी मातृ सिमित कसी कायकता को पद से पृथक करना आशय का
ताव उपयु कारण दशाते हुए सिमित क बैठक म तुत म ताव बहुमत से
पा रत होने पर पयवे क को े षत करे गी। पयवे क सिमित ारा ा ताव के
प रपे य म हटाने के कारण के त य क जांच उसके प ात ् अपना जांच ितवेदन 15
दवस म पट अनुशंसा स हत बाल प रयोजना अिधकार को भेजना होगा।
2. प रयोजना अिधकार ारा पयवे क के जांच ितवेदन का पर ण कर सात दवस
म आंगनवाड़ कायकता क सेवा समाि का िनणय िलया जाकर सेवा समा पत के
आदे श जार कये जा सकगे। आंगनवाड़ कायकता को पद से पृथक करने के पूव
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26847
8 WP-3404-2012
सुनवाई का अवसर दया जाना अिनवाय होगा।
3. य द सहयोिगनी मातृ सिमित व पयवे क के मत म िभ नता हो तो बाल वकास
प रयोजना अिधकार ारा जांच उपरात िनणय िलया जाकर जला काय म अिधकार
/ जला म हला बाल वकास अिधकार के अनुमोदन प ात ् पद से पृथक कया जा
सकेगा।
4 य द पयवे क क जानकार म कायकता के व कोई गंभीर िशकायत सीधे आती
है तो इन िशकायत पर संबंिधत सिमित का मत ा कर जांच उपरात व णत, या
ारा कायकता को हटाने क कायवाह कर सकती है ।
Admittedly, no regular departmental enquiry has been conducted and
stigmatic termination order has been passed. As per reply filed by the
respondents, petitioner is currently working on the post of Anganwadi
Worker.
13. In light of aforesaid discussion, it is seen that no charge-sheet was
issued to petitioner and no regular departmental enquiry has been conducted
and the impugned stigmatic order has been passed.
14. Considering the aforesaid pronouncements, 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 12.09.2011 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 09.04.2012 (Annexure P/2)
are hereby set aside. As the petitioner has been continuing as per reply, there
is no need to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, however,
respondent/State would be at liberty to proceed against petitioner in
accordance with law, in case if need so arises in future.
15. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26847
9 WP-3404-2012
JUDGE
Monika
