Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durgalal Singare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29318
1 WP-11131-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 8 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 11131 of 2024
DURGALAL SINGARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde GA for State.
Shri Anmol Parwal, counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
ORDER
In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 28.3.2024
(Annx.P/4) issued by respondent No.4 terminating the services of the
petitioner on the post of Guest Faculty and relieving him from the said post.
2. Facts of the case are petitioner was appointed to teach Economics
Subject in the Government Model Higher Secondary School, Barwani but the
respondent No.5 and his wife Smt. Vandana Dabi was presurrizing the
petitioner to teach the subject Business Studies of Commerce stream for
which the petitioner does not possess the requisite educational qualification
and for which a permanent teacher i.e. Mrs. Vandana Dabi, W/o Respondent
No. 5 is already posted in Government Model Higher Secondary School,
Barwani, which is evident from the copy of time table (Annexure P/7).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29318
2 WP-11131-2024
However, when the petitioner refused to take up this teaching assignment,
the Respondent No. 5 who is also Vice Principal of the School started
harassing the petitioner and pressurizing him to take up this assignment so
that wife of Respondent No. 5 who is - posted to teach Commerce Subject
gets free. Even when the students of Class 11th made complaint on
6.11.2023 (Annexure P/8) to the Respondent No. 4, instead of directing Mrs.
Vandana Dabi, wife of Respondent No. 5, the Respondent No. 4 directed the
petitioner to take up these classes of Business Studies. The petitioner further
submits that his act of defiance of the order passed by Respondent No. 4 was
not relished by Respondent No. 4 & 5 and they started harassing the
petitioner by abusing him using caste indicative words. The petitioner was
made class teacher of Class 11 in the mid-academic session, despite
availability of trained regular teacher, the petitioner was employed to
undertake CCLE activities, without any training whereas all the regular
teachers have been given 5 davs residential training undertaking CCLE
activities. The Respondent No. 4 & 5 also created two sections of Class 9th
in mid-academic session and forced the petitioner to teach Social Science in
both these sections whereas a regular teacher and a Guest Teacher in Social
Science was already posted. All these harassment have been brought to the
notice of Respondent No. 4 by the petitioner from time to time but when the
harassment became intolerable, the petitioner lodged a written complaint
dated 2.2.2024 (Annexure P/9) to Station House Officer, Police Station
AJAK, Barwani with a copy thereof to Respondent No. 3 praying for the
justice. Consequent to that, impugned order has been issued whereby
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29318
3 WP-11131-2024
services of the petitioner have been terminated and he has been relieved from
the school. Hence, this petition.
3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that services of the petitioner have
been terminated vide Annx.P/4 mentioning the ground 'bad character " बुरा
च र " which is manifest from the impugned order in which name of the
petitioner is mentioned at S.No.3. It is argued that the aforesaid order of
termination is stigmatic order and same has been passed without giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in violation of principles of
natural justice. He argued that impugned order of termination would
prejudice his future prospects of the employment and cause serious civil
consequences.
4. Counsel for the State supported the impugned order stating that the
petitioner was working as Guest Faculty and it is an assignment on contract,
therefore no enquiry is necessary.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
termination of the petitioner on the ground of 'bad character' is stigmatic
order. The reason assigned for termination of the petitioner is vague. It is
settled law that even for termination of a contract employee, the enquiry has
be conducted. In this regard, a reference can be made to the judgment passed
in the case of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal,
2001(3) MPLJ 616. The Division Bench in the case of Mission Director,
RCH/NRHM Vs. Ranjit Jain and another, (2011) 4 MPHT 266 held that
services of a contract employee cannot be terminated by a stigmatic order
without holding any enquiry.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29318
4 WP-11131-2024
6. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 28.3.2024
(Annx.P/4) terminating the services of the petitioner is quashed. The matter
is remanded to the competent authority, who is given liberty to pass a fresh
order in accordance with law after conducting an enqiry.
7. Since the matter is being remanded to the competent authority to
pass fresh order, therefore this Court is not directing for reinstatement of
service of the petitioner. The competent authority shall complete the
aforesaid exercise within 90 days from the date of filing of copy of the order
passed today. It is made clear that impugned order shall not be treated to be a
stigmatic order for future employment of the petitioner.
With the aforesaid, the petition is partly allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
