Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravindra Kumar Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31019
1 WP-27585-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 27585 of 2025
RAVINDRA KUMAR SOLANKI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Anirudh Malpani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure
P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore affirming the
order dated 21.03.2022 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Collector-Cum-District
Programme Coordinator, District Jhabua whereby his services as a
Gram Rojgar Sahayak have been terminated. The petitioner was appointed
on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. It is stated that the services of the
petitioner have been terminated by respondent No.3 without holding enquiry
and by a stigmatic order. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore which has been dismissed by order
dated 03.07.2025.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31019
2 WP-27585-2025
petitioner have been terminated without holding regular enquiry and by a
stigmatic order on the ground that he has been negligent in discharge of
duties and has also been involved in misappropriation of funds of the
Panchayat. The reply to the show cause filed by him was not found to be
satisfactory. As a result of the acts of the petitioner the State Government has
suffered loss and various projects have not yielded the desired result. It is
argued that since the order impugned was stigmatic in nature, therefore,
regular departmental inquiry ought to have been held by the respondents. In
support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by
Coordinate 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.) . The relevant para
of the judgment in the case of Arvind Malviya (supra) reads 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31019
3 WP-27585-2025
3. Counsel for the State submits that from the impugned order, it is
evident that a show cause notice was issued and after affording personal
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed and
therefore substantially the provisions of holding enquiry were complied with.
There was no violation of principle of natural justice.
4. The impugned orders do not indicate that the petitioner was
afforded opportunity of personal hearing and regular departmental enquiry
before passing the order of termination was conducted.
5. 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 of termination 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.
6. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31019
4 WP-27585-2025
