Madhya Pradesh High Court
Malkhan Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
WRIT PETITION No. 25354 of 2023
MALKHAN SINGH YADAV
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri B.P.Pathak & Shri Shivam Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner.
Shri K.K.Prajapati- GA for the respondents/State.
RESERVED ON: 18/08/2025
ORDER PASSED ON: 08/09/2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 10.11.2022 (Annexure
P/7), whereby, Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Vidisha, has passed
order directing recovery of amount from petitioner and two others and has
also recommended for termination of petitioner's contract service. He has
also challenged the order dated 19.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by
Collector, Vidisha, whereby, his contractual service has been terminated.
The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to
reinstate him in service with full back wages.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner
was initially appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak in MGNREGA Scheme in
Gram Panchayat Muskura, Janpad Panchayat Lateri, District Vidisha on
contract basis vide order dated 24.08.2022 (Annexure P/2).
3. From the records, it is gathered that certain complaints were made
against the petitioner, Panchayat Secretary and Sarpanch of the Gram
Panchayat with regard to irregularities in construction work carried out in
Gram Panchayat. Based upon social audit report, a show cause notice was
issued to petitioner and Panchayat Secretary on 15.09.2020 (Annexure P/4)
asking them to show cause with regard to spending the amount without
there being any work carried out on spot. An allegation of not maintaining
proper record was also levelled. The petitioner submitted his reply on
18.09.2020 (Annexure P/5) thereby denying the allegations. In substance, he
blamed Panchayat Secretary and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat for the
illegalities committed.
4. It appears that the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Pachayat
constituted a two member committee to enquire into the allegations made in
the complaints. The Committee conducted the enquiry and submitted its
report (Annexure P/6), wherein, the petitioner as also the Sarpanch and
Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat were held guilty of
disbursement of the amount without there being any work on site. It is not
clear from the report as to whether any opportunity was given by enquiry
committee to petitioner before rendering any finding. It is also not clear as
to on what material the findings are rendered against the petitioner.
5. Thereafter, based upon the report submitted by the Committee,
proceedings under Section 89 of Panchayat Raj Evem Gram Swaraj
Adhiniyam, 1993 were initiated against all the aforesaid three persons. The
proceedings ultimately concluded with passing of order, dated 10.11.2022,
(Annexure P/7) by Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panhayat, Vidisha whereby
recovery of certain amounts found unauthorizedly spend, was directed to be
recovered from Sarpanch, Panchayat Secretary and the petitioner.
Simultaneously, a recommendation was made to Collector, Vidisha to
terminate petitioner's contractual service from the post of Gram Rojgar
Sahayak.
6. The Collector, Vidisha, then issued a show cause notice to petitioner
on 14.12.2022, (Annexure P/8) thereby asking the petitioner to show cause
as to why his services be not terminated on the basis of report submitted by
committee. The petitioner submitted his reply on 30.12.2022 (Annexure
P/9) whereby he denied the allegations made against him. He also stated in
his reply that he has already deposited his share of amount as directed vide
order, dated 10.11.2022.
7. The impugned order, dated 19.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) thereafter
came to be passed whereby the petitioner's contractual service was
terminated. The impugned order states that during the proceedings under
Section 89 of Adhiniyam, the opportunity to lead evidence was given and
the evidence was received. It further states that reasonable opportunity to
hearing was given to petitioner. It also states that based upon the
irregularities found in construction work and amount of recovery
determined, the issues for enquiry were framed. Thereafter, the findings
recorded in enquiry report are reproduced and ultimately the petitioner's
services were terminated.
8. Challenging the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner
primarily alleged ground of non-compliance with principles of natural
justice inasmuch as no charges were framed against the petitioner and he
was not afforded adequate opportunity of hearing before passing of
impugned orders. It is his submission that even though in his explanation,
the petitioner has made various submissions, which are required to be
enquired into by a fact finding enquiry, the impugned orders have been
passed solely based upon the enquiry report submitted by the two members
Committee behind the back of petitioner. It is his submission that the
respondents failed to adhere to the provisions of Circular dated 21/1/2021,
which provides for grant of reasonable opportunity of hearing before
passing any order. He placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the
coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Rajdeep Singh Sendhaw
Vs. State of M.P. & Ors, in W.P. No.10225/2023, Pawan Kumar Thakur
Lodhi Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., in W.P. No.3002/2024 and Satyaprakash
Jatav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. in W.P. No.29509/2022.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the
impugned orders and submitted that the petitioner was only a contractual
employee and was therefore, not having any right to continue in service
after expiry of period of his contract. He further submitted that findings
were recorded against the petitioner by the two members Committee, which
had called the petitioner also to participate in the enquiry. Therefore, if the
impugned orders are passed based upon the said enquiry report, nothing
wrong can be said to have been done by the authorities. He therefore, prays
for dismissal of the petition.
10. Considered the arguments and perused the records.
11. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with
while taking action against a contractual employee also like the petitioner.
This has been so held by this Court in the cases of Rajdeep Singh Sendhaw
(supra), Pawan Kumar Thakur Lodhi (supra) and Satyaprakash Jatav
(supra) as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, Clause
1.14.1 of Circular dated 5/6/2018 (Annexure P/11) also provides for the
provision and the same reads as under:-
"1-14-1 lafonk ij dk;Zjr vf/kdkfj;ksa @ deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok ;qfDr;qDr
vk/kkj o dkj.kksa ds fcuk lekIr ugha dh tkosaA fdlh ds fo:) xEHkhj vkjksiksa
dh fLFkfr esa dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= tkjh dj ;qfDr;qDr lquokbZ dk volj
nsus ,oa lexz :i ls tkWp iw.kZ djus ds ckn gh lsok lekIr dh tk ldsxh
A"
12. Therefore, the compliance of principles of natural justice by affording
adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was the mandate of law. It
is therefore, required to be seen as to whether, the aforesaid requirement of
law has been satisfied in the present case or not?
13. Admittedly, the impugned orders have been passed based upon the
report submitted by two members Committee which has been brought on
record as Annexure P/6. The respondents have not brought on record any
material to show that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.
Even otherwise, after the report was received, it was incumbent upon the
respondent authorities to have framed specific allegations against the
petitioner and asked him for his explanation. Further, if the explanation
given by the petitioner was found to be factual, necessary evidence was also
required to be led in support of the charges. At least, the petitioner should
have been granted an opportunity to give his evidence in rebuttal of the
allegations. However, the authorities have miserably failed in complying
with the aforesaid minimum requirement of law.
14. From a perusal of the explanation given by the petitioner before CEO,
Janpad Panchayat, it is evident that various factual aspects have been raised
by the petitioner. He has specifically denied his power to withdraw the
amount and has stated that the said power vests with the Sarpanch and the
Panchayat Secretary. He has also stated that the musters were prepared by
him on the dictates of the Panchayat Secretary and the Sarpanch. The
aforesaid explanation given by the petitioner is not found to have been
considered in the impugned orders.
15. The another important aspect which was to be considered is issue of
quantum of punishment which was required to be considered by authorities
while passing the impugned orders. The petitioner has given his explanation
denying his involvement in the matter of disbursement of the amount. If this
is found correct, this may affect the ultimate punishment which is required
to be passed in the matter. It is profitable to refer to the memo dated
16/8/2022 (Annexure P/17) issued by the Commissioner, M.P. State
Employment Guarantee Council to all Collectors/District Programme
Coordinators under MGNREGA Scheme stating that in cases of Gram
Rojgar Sahayak, termination order should not be passed mechanically,
instead, the other punishments like warning, censure, no work no pay can
also be imposed looking to the gravity of the allegations made. He has
deprecated the practice of terminating the services of Gram Rojgar Sahayak
mechanically in all cases.
16. During the course of arguments, the learned respondents' counsel
submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the amount as directed
pursuant to order, dated 10.11.2022, (Annexure P/7) and, therefore, by this
conduct, the petitioner has admitted his guilt. In response, the petitioner's
counsel submitted that, in order to put the controversy at rest, the petitioner
deposited the amount. However, should not be treated to be his admission of
his guilt.
17. The argument so made by learned counsels is considered. The
admission of guilt is required to be clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. It
cannot be presumed by drawing inferences from facts. Further, before using
it as admission, the petitioner was required to put to notice that his act is
proposed to be used as admission. However, no such procedure is adopted
in the present case. There may be cases, where the incumbent is not in a
position to contest and he may decide to deposit the amount to put the
controversy at rest. The petitioner is admittedly not put to notice that his act
of depositing the amount is proposed to be used as his admission. The
finding of guilt, therefore, cannot be based upon his act of depositing the
amount pursuant to order, dated 10.11.2022. The submission made by
respondents' counsel is, therefore, not acceptable and is accordingly
rejected.
18. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the respondents have failed to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner. Further, the issue of quantum of punishment has also not been
considered while passing the impugned orders.
19. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 19.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) is
set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstatement the petitioner in
service. The respondents are also granted liberty to take action afresh after
affording due opportunity of hearing to petitioner keeping in view the
provisions of various circulars issued by the State Govt. from time to time
in this regard as also the observations made by this Court hereinabove.
20. Since, the petitioner has already complied with the order, dated
10.11.2022, (Annexure P/7), the same is not required to be set aside.
Further, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that
the issue of payment of back wages to the petitioner for the intervening
period shall be decided based upon the outcome of the enquiry that is to be
conducted pursuant to the order passed by this Court.
21. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
