Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shalini Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27081
1 WP. No. 324 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 324 of 2017
SMT. SHALINI JAIN
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi -
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Aditya Pratap Singh - Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
"(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed;
(ii) That, the impugned order dated 28.12.2016 Annexure P/1 and
the order dated 16.11.2016 Annexure P/2 passed by the respondents
authorities may kindly be directed to be set aside and the petitioner
may kindly be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
(ii-A) That, the order Annexure P/19 may kindly be directed to be set
aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27081
(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble
Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be
also awarded in favour of the petitioner."
2. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner
that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer on contract basis in
Janpad Panchayat Mehgaon, District Bhind (M.P.). Petitioner was appointed by
respondent no.2-Council and thereafter consequential appointment order was
issued by the Zila Panchayat Bhind (Annexure P-4). The petitioner was working
satisfactorily, however, respondent no.7 entered in the office of the Chief
Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mehgaon and started hindrance in the
working of petitioner. Initially, notice was issued to her leveling allegation
against her that she made payment to certain firms. Petitioner replied the said
notice and stated that the payment is made under the orders of the Chief
Executive Officer and petitioner is only holding the post of Asstt. Accounts
Officer, and therefore, unless the bills are approved by the competent authority
no payment is made by petitioner. Thereafter, again a notice (Annexure P-6) was
issued to petitioner. Petitioner again replied the same stating that the work to M/s
Devansh Trading Company, which is a firm relating to the husband of petitioner,
has been given by the Janpad Panchayat and not by petitioner. Payment was
made to the said firm under the orders of the Chief Executive Officer i.e. the
competent authority. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that thereafter
respondent no.7 Chief Executive Officer made certain criminal activities and
obscenity with petitioner who is a woman. Thus, petitioner initially made
complaint on 2.7.2016 in the concerning police station (Annexure P-9).
Thereafter, ultimately, the FIR was lodged on 1.8.2016 against respondent no.7
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27081
which was registered under Sections 354, 323, 294 and 506-B of IPC (Annexure
P-10). When petitioner lodged an FIR against respondent no.7 who was holding
the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mehgaon, he took U-turn
and thereafter he made recommendation with respect to alleged financial
irregularities said to have been committed by petitioner and sent his
recommendation to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Bhind.
3. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel that on 2.7.2016 when
petitioner for the first time lodged FIR against respondent no.7 on the same date
the Chief Executive Officer made recommendation with respect to termination of
petitioner with the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Bhind. Thereafter, on
15.7.2016 notice was issued to petitioner to show-cause as to why her services be
not terminated and asked for her explanation thereon. Petitioner submitted reply
to the said notice dated 15.7.2016 (Annexure P/11). Thereafter, a committee was
constituted by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat under pressure of the
Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat which found petitioner guilty of the
alleged charges in fact finding enquiry (Annexure P/12). Learned Senior Counsel
submits that the fact finding enquiry report was ex parte fact finding enquiry
report where petitioner was not given any opportunity to submit her defence and
petitioner was also not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. It is submitted
that no witness was examined in the said enquiry conducted. The said fact
finding enquiry was nothing but merely an eye wash. It is submitted that on the
basis of the aforesaid ex parte fact finding enquiry report, the impugned order
dated 16.11.2016 was passed whereby services of petitioner were terminated
which is stigmatic in nature and stigmatic termination order cannot be issued
without holding the regular departmental enquiry.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27081
4. It is further submitted that against the order impugned dated 16.11.2016
(Annexure P-2), petitioner filed appeal. However, Additional Commissioner,
Chambal Division, Morena (M.P.) rejected the said appeal by order dated
28.12.2016 on the ground of maintainability. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena as the power of
hearing/deciding appeal was assigned to Commissioner, Chambal Division,
Morena (M.P.). The said appeal was also dismissed by order dated 07.07.2017
(Annexure P-19) which has also been challenged by petitioner by moving an
application for amendment in the present writ petition.
5. Per contra, while refuting the submissions put forth by learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, it is submitted by learned Government
Advocate that as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment
order, the services of petitioner have been terminated after giving her proper
opportunity of hearing. Said relevant conditions of the appointment order are
quoted below for ready reference and convenience:-
14- lafonk ij fu;qDr O;fDr ds dnkpkj ;k fdlh vkijkf/kd fØ;kdyki esa lafyIr
ik;s tkus ij fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh mls lquokbZ dk ;qfDr;qDr volj nsus ds i'pkr~ ,slh
lafonk fu;qfDr lekIr dj ldsxkA
16- dk;kZy; esa lafonk lsok vof/k ds nkSjku vU; fdlh Hkh izdkj ds
laLFkkuksa@dk;kZy;ksa esa dk;Z djus vFkok O;fDrxr RkkSj ij fdlh Hkh izdkj ds O;kikj
djus ij izfrca/k jgsxkA
6. Learned counsel for respondent/State submits that proper opportunity was
extended to petitioner as the defence/reply was submitted by her before the
disciplinary authority and after considering the entire evidence and material on
record, respondent No.5 passed impugned order Annexure P-2 dated 16.11.2016.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27081
Learned counsel for respondents No.6 and 7 also supported the stand taken by
learned counsel for the State and prayed for dismissal of present petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the services of petitioner have
been terminated without holding any regular departmental enquiry. Since
impugned order Annexure P-2 dated 16.11.2016 is stigmatic in nature, therefore,
regular departmental enquiry ought to have been held by respondents. The order
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.
9. 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. The Apex Court while deciding the case of Khem Chand vs. The
Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1958 SC 300, had an occasion to
summarize the concept of reasonable opportunity, relevant para of which reads
as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27081
"(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."
10. From the aforesaid, it is clear that impugned order dated 16.11.2016 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 regular departmental enquiry. From the language of impugned order,
it is clear that it is a stigmatic termination order.
11. 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 a regular
departmental 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27081
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."
12. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27081
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."
13. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27081
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.
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.
14. In the 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 dated 16.11.2016 has been passed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27081
15. In the case of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission,
Bhopal reported in 2001 (3) MPLJ 616, this Court in Paragraph 10 has held as
under:-
"10. The present factual matrix is to be tested on the aforesaid
enunciation of law. To find out whether the order of termination
is a termination simpliciter or punitive in nature it is apposite to
refer to the order contained in Annexure P-18. The relevant
portion of the same reads as under :-
**Jh jkgqy f=ikBh vkRet Jh ch-ds f=ikBh dks fodkl [k.M cYnsox<+ esa fodkl
[k.M L=ksr dsUæ leUo;d ds :i esa jktho xka/kh çkFkfed f'k{kk fe'ku ds
varxZr ,d o"kZ dh lafonk fu;qfä vkns'k Øekad Mh-ih-bZ-ih@fu;q-@95@22@6
fnukad 21&8&95 }kjk nh xbZ Fkh] ftldh vof/k fu;ekuqlkj fnukad 20&8&96
dks gks xbZ FkhA bl vof/k dh lekfIr ds mijkar dk;kZy;hu vkns'k Øekad 839]
fnukad 6&9&96 }kjk Jh f=ikBh dks lafonk fu;qfDr dh 'krksZa ij gh iqu% vkxkeh
vkns'k rd inLFk fd;k x;k Fkk fdUrq Jh f=ikBh ds fo#) xaHkhj foRrh;
vfu;feRrkvksa ,oa ofj"B dk;kZy;ksa ds vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk dh f'kdk;rsa çkIr
gqbaZA f'kdk;rksa ds lEcU/k esa bl dk;kZy; ds i= Øekad 710 fnukad 25&11&97]
Øekad 858@1] fnukad 23&12&97] Ø- 983@1] fnukad 21&1&98 Øekad 1120]
fnukad 18@11@98] Øekad 1156 fnukad 2&12&98 }kjk Li"Vhdj.k pkgk x;k
fdUrq Jh f=ikBh }kjk Li"Vhdj.k ,oa mlds mYysf[kr vkjksiksa dk dksbZ
lek/kkudkjd mÙkj çLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA fodkl [k.M f'k{kk vf/kdkjh
cYnsox<+ }kjk Hkh fodkl [k.M lzksr dsUæ] cYnsox< esa Jh f=ikBh }kjk foÙkh;
vfu;ferrk fd, tkus ,oa vius drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu xaHkhjrk ls u djus lEcU/kh
çfrosnu çLrqr fd;k gS- ftlls cYnsox< fodkl [k.M esa fe'ku dk;Z vR;ar
çHkkfor gqvk gSA
vr% mijksä dkj.kksa dks -f"Vxr j[krs gq, Jh f=ikBh dks rRdky çHkko ls
fodkl [k.M lzksr dsUæ leUo;d cYnsox<+ in ls i`Fkd~ fd;k tkrk gSA bUgsa
uksfVl u fn, tkus ds dkj.k fu;ekuqlkj ,d ekg dk osru ns; gksxkA
¼dysDVj ,oa ftyk fe'ku lapkyd }kjk vknsf'kr½**
On a bare glance at the aforesaid order it becomes
graphically clear that the petitioner's appointment was extended
from time to time but during his continuance serious allegations
with regard to financial irregularities were received. The order
also reflects that the petitioner was asked to show-cause in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27081
number of correspondences but the petitioner could not explain
the charges levelled against him. It has also been mentioned in
the order as the petitioner has committed financial irregularities
and has not performed his duties with sincerity the work of the
Mission has been affected and accordingly he has been removed.
At this juncture, it is worthwhile to refer to the counter affidavit
wherein it has been also that against the petitioner there were
serious financial irregularities and he was asked to show cause
but his reply was not found satisfactory. The return filed by the
respondent No.3 also irregularities reflects the same. On a
scrutiny of the entire factual scenario, there remains no scintilla
of doubt that the order of termination passed against the
petitioner is stigmatic and cannot be regarded as a termination
simpliciter. The allegations incorporated in the order clearly
establish that stigma has been cast and it will t vill affect
prospects of the petitioner. Accordingly, the order contained in
Annexure P-18 deserves to be quashed and accordingly, I so do.
Needless to emphasis the petitioner shall reap all the
consequential benefits."
16. This Court, in the case of Umesh Kumar Trivedi Vs. State Committee,
Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission and others reported in 2002 (2) MPLJ
391, in Paras 9 and 10, has held as under:-
"9. In the return, there are serious allegations levelled against
the petitioner of making appointment in an illegal manner and
not distributing the books. As a matter of fact, petitioner ought to
have been required to show cause and a by-party enquiry should
have been conducted into the allegations if the services of the
petitioner were to be dispensed with on that basis. The
misconduct alleged in the return was the "foundation" and not
merely a "motive". Thus, it was necessary to have conducted an
enquiry. In Jarnail Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and
others, AIR 1986 SC 1626, the Supreme Court held that in such
circumstances, it is imperative to conduct an enquiry even where
the services are ad hoc in its nature. No enquiry was conducted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27081
and outrightly the petitioner was given march order, that too after
rendering the services for about a period of five years. His
services shall be deemed to be extended for want of specific
order of extension and if termination was to be made, Clause 4
containing the condition relating to termination should have been
complied with. The impugned order Annexure P-2, thus, cannot
withstand the judicial scrutiny. The same is liable to be quashed
and is hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated
along with back wages.
10. Writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-2 is quashed.
Reinstatement of the petitioner is directed along with back
wages. Principle of "no work no pay" is not applicable as the
petitioner's removal has been found to be illegal and contrary to
rules and without following the principles of natural justice."
17. A similar view has been expressed in the case of Jitendra Vs. State of
M.P. and others reported in 2008 (5) MPHT 146, wherein, this Court in Paras 7
to 10, has held as under:
"7. After going through the impugned order; averments made
in the petition, reply and rejoinder, it is clear that the respondents
had Issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner alleging the
irregularities committed by him in purchasing various articles
Thereafter a three member Committee enquired and found
Illegalities and irregularities in the purchases. The decision of the
Committee was on the basis of enquiry conducted behind the
back of the petitioner. On the foundation of such report, the State
Level Appointment Committee held the petitioner's services to
be unsatisfactory and took decision to terminate him from
service.
8. True it is that in the impugned order no allegation about,
unsatisfactory record or misconduct has been mentioned.
However, a reference has been made in the said order of
termination about the decision dated 14-6- 2005 taken by the said
State Level Appointment Committee in an enquiry conducted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27081
behind the back of the petitioner. Having regard to this and the
stand taken by the respondents in reply as referred to above it is
graphically clear that foundation of the impugned order of
termination is punitive in nature. On scrutiny of the entire factual
scenario leading to the termination of the petitioner's services,
there remains no doubt that order of termination passed against
the petitioner is stigmatic in nature and cannot be regarded as
termination simpliciter. The foundation of impugned order is
decision of the State Level Appointment Committee, which is
termi based upon the enquiry report of the three Member
Committee, contai which had conducted the enquiry behind the
back of the petitioner.
9. In the case of Shamshersingh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR
1974SC 423, it has been held by the Supreme Court that form of
the orders not conclusive and innocuously worded order can be
passed on a foundation of grave charge. In the case of State of
U.P vs. Ramchandra Trivedi, AIR 1976 SC 2547, it was held by
the Supreme Court, that the motive in passing an order of
termination is not a relevant factor. What is determinative is the
foundation on which it is based. It is foundation which makes the
order punitive in nature. In the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee
Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose, National Centre for Basic Sciences,
Calcutta and others, AIR 1999 SC 983, it has been held by the
Supreme Court that the material which amounts stigma need not
be mentioned in the order determination of the Probationer but
them be contained in document referred in the termination might
be in its annexures Obviously such a document could be asked
for or called for by att future employer of the probationer. In
such case, the order of termination would stand vitiated on the
ground that no regulat inquiry was conducted. In the case of
Radheshyam Gupta Vs UP. Industries Agro, (1999) 2 SCC 21,
the Supreme Court has held that where the termination is
preceded by an enquiry and evidence is received and findings as
to misconduct or a definitive nature are arrived at behind back of
the officer and where on the basis of such a report, the
termination order is issued, such an order will be violative of the
principles of natural justice inasmuch as the purpose of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27081
enquiry is to find out the truth of the allegations with a view to
punish him and not merely to gather evidence for a future regular
departmental enquiry. In such cases, the termination is to be
treated as based or founded upon misconduct and will be
punitive. In somewhat identical situation, learned Single Judge of
this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi
Shiksha Kendra, 2001(3) Μ.Ρ.Η.Τ. 397 = 2001 (3) MPLJ 616,
has quashed the termination order and held that petitioner shall
reap all the consequential benefits.
10. Having regard to the aforesaid legal position there remains
no iota of doubt that the impugned termination order dated 18-6-
2005 (Annexure P-9) though, innocuously worded but is founded
upon the enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner
about the alleged misconduct. In the circumstances, the same
deserves to be and is hereby quashed. As a result, the petitioner
shall be entitled for reinstatement with all consequential
benefits."
18. From perusal of language of impugned termination order Annexure P-2
dated 16.11.2016, it is crystal clear that it is stigmatic in nature. Therefore, while
allowing the present petition, orders Annexure P/1 dated 28.12.2016, Annexure
P/2 dated 16.11.2016 and Annexure P/19 dated 07.07.2017 are hereby quashed.
Consequently, respondents are directed to reinstate petitioner with all
consequential benefits except backwages on the principle of no work no pay. The
matter is remanded to the respondent-authorities to conduct a regular
departmental enquiry and after giving proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner
pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
19. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
