Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Rani Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21934
1 WP.3230 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 12th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3230 of 2014
SMT. RANI GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Singh Rathore - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 3204 of 2014
BHAGWAN DAS AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.P. Singh - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 9/16/2025
6:12:34 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21934
2 WP.3230 of 2014
WRIT PETITION No. 3231 of 2014
SMT. JANKI TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Singh Rathore - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 3233 of 2014
SURENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Singh Rathore - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Since the issue involved herein is one and the same, therefore, by this
common order, WP. No.3230 of 2014 filed by Smt. Rani Gupta, WP. No. 3204 of
2014 filed by Bhagwan Das, Sanjay Singh & Smt. Manju Devi, WP. No.3231 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21934
3 WP.3230 of 2014
2014 filed by Smt. Janki Tomar & WP. No.3233 of 2014 filed by Surendra Singh
shall be decided.
2. For the sake of convenience, facts of WP. No. 3230 of 2014 shall be taken
into consideration.
3. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the impugned order of termination from service of
petitioner Annexure P/1 at Item No.2 may kindly be quashed.
(ii) That, Any other writ order and direction, which is found just,
suitable and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted to
the petitioner."
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was
working as A.Ν.Μ. (Women Health Worker) at Nutrition Rehabilitation Centre,
(NRC) Gohad District Bhind (M.P.) in the National Rural Health Mission
Madhya Pradesh. Petitioner was initially appointed as Women Health Worker by
respondent No. 3 vide order dated 25.01.2011 on contract basis and she was
posted at Sub-Health Centre, Enchaya Gohad Distt. Bhind (M.P.). Vide order
dated 04-07-2013 petitioner was posted at Nutrition Rehabilitation Centre.
Gohad Distt. Bhind. Thereafter, by impugned termination order Annexure P-1
dated 19.05.2014, services of petitioner have been terminated according to
Clause 2.18 of Contractual Human Resource Policy of National Rural Health
Mission, Madhya Pradesh of the year 2013-14 and according to Clause 17.1 of
the policy the candidature of petitioner shall not be considered in future for any
contractual post. Such an order has been passed by respondents without giving
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21934
4 WP.3230 of 2014
any notice and opportunity of hearing to petitioner regarding allegations of
negligence in duty. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the
impugned termination order is arbitrary and contrary to law as it has been passed
without giving any opportunity of hearing and show cause notice to the
petitioner. Thus, the action of respondents is in flagrant violation of principle of
natural justice and in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that services of
petitioner have been terminated without holding any enquiry. Since impugned
order Annexure P-1 dated 19.05.2014 is stigmatic in nature, therefore, regular
departmental enquiry ought to have been held by respondents. To bolster his
submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment passed by Co-
ordinate 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.).
6. It is submitted that 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. It is further submitted that the Apex Court while deciding
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21934
5 WP.3230 of 2014
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 has been pressed into service and 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."
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State justifying the order impugned
submitted that since allegations levelled against petitioners were found proved,
therefore, the services of petitioners were rightly terminated. It is further
submitted by him that petitioners are contractual workers and as per Clause 2.18
of Contractual Human Resource Policy of National Rural Health Mission,
Madhya Pradesh of the year 2013-14 services of petitioners can be terminated
after giving one month's notice. Clause 2.18 of the said policy reads as under:
**2-18 jkT; LokLF; lfefr }kjk ifjfLFkfrtU; dkj.kksa ls vuqca/k ,d ekg dh iwoZ
lwpuk vFkok ,d ekg ds lafonk ekuns; dh lerqY; jkf'k dk Hkqxrku] dj lekIr dh
tk ldsxhA**
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21934
6 WP.3230 of 2014
8. Learned counsel for respondent/State further submits that the impugned
order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-1) is only a show-cause notice and not the
termination order and as per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Union of India and Another Vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in
(2006) 12 SCC 28 petitioners are not entitled to get any relief. Thus, learned
counsel for respondent/State supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal
of present petitions.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it
is seen that impugned order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-1) is not a show-
cause notice but it is a stigmatic termination order which is clear from its
language even, which goes as under:-
**,rn }kjk vkidks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fnukad 05 ebZ 2014 dks lekpkj
i= nSfud tkxj.k esa çdkf'kr vuqlkj iks"k.k iquokZl dsUæ] xksgn esa inLFk deZpkfj;ksa
ds jkf= esa u :dus ds pyrs HkrhZ dqiksf"kr cPps dh ?kj ij e`R;q gqbZ] mä fLFkfr
vR;ar xaHkhj gksdj ykijokgh ,oa inh; dRrZO;ksa dk fuoZgu u djus dh Js.kh
esa vkrk gSA
vkidk mDr d`R; jkT; Lrj ls tkjh funsZ'k fdlh Hkh n'kk esa iks"k.k iquokZl
dsUæ cUn u fd;k tkos] dh vogsyuk dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA iks"k.k iquokZl dsUæ esa
inLFk deZpkfj;ksa ds jkf= dks u jgus ds dkj.k jkf= esa ifjtuksa }kjk cPpksa dks ?kj ys
tk;k tkrk gS] blh ds dkj.k e`R;q dk mYys[k lanfHkZr lekpkj i= esa fd;k x;k gSA
fe'ku lapkyd] ,uvkj,p,e e/;çns'k ds lanfHkZr i= }kjk iks"k.k iquokZl
dsUæ esa inLFk deZpkfj;ksa }kjk jkf= esa u #duk] jkT; Lrj ls tkjh funsZ'kksa dh
vogsyuk gksrs gq, dBksj dk;Zokgh ds :i esa iks"k.k iquokZl dsUæ esa inLFk leLr
deZpkfj;ksa dh lafonk lsok rqjar lekfIr ds funsZ'k çnku fd, x, gSA
vkids mä --R; ,uvkj,p,e] e/;çns'k dh lafonk ekuo lalk/ku uhfr dh dafMdk
2-16 dk mYya?ku gksdj dnkpj.k dh Js.kh esa vkrs gSaA
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21934
7 WP.3230 of 2014
vr% ekuo lalk/ku uhfr dh dafMdk Ø- 2-18 ds vuqlkj vki leLRk dks ,d ekg
dk iwoZ lwpuk i= çLrqr fd;k tk jgk gS- lwpuk i= tkjh fnukad ds ,d ekg
i'pkr vkidh lafonk lsok Lor% lekIr ekuh tkosxh] ftl gsrq iqu% dksbZ
i=kpkj ;k vkns'k tkjh ugha fd;k tkosxkA lkFk gh ekuo la'kk/ku uhfr dh dafMdk
Ø-17-1 ds vuqlkj vki Hkfo"; esa vU; fdlh lafonk in ds fy, mEehnokjh
ij fopkj ugha fd;k tkosxkA rnuqlkj voxr gksA**
10. From the aforesaid, it is clear that impugned order is stigmatic in nature,
therefore, without conducting a regular departmental enquiry impugned order
cannot be issued by respondents. The impugned termination order has been
issued without giving any opportunity of hearing to petitioners. From the
language of impugned order, it is clear that it is a termination order and not the
show-cause notice. Even, reply has not been called from petitioners.
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 petitioners 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."
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:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21934
8 WP.3230 of 2014
"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 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21934
9 WP.3230 of 2014
13. Taking into consideration the entire gamut of the matter and also the fact
that the present petition is similar to order dated 25/4/2022 passed in WP
No.23267/2019 [Omprakash Gurjar vs. Panchayat and Rural Development
& Ors.], the impugned termination/removal order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure
P-1) is hereby set aside.
14. This Court has already issued interim order dated 19.06.2014 (in WP.
No.3230/2014, WP. No.3231/2014 and WP. No.3233/2014) and interim order
dated 17.06.2014 (in WP. No.3204/2014) by which impugned order 19.05.2014
(Annexure P-1) has been stayed and thus petitioners must have been continuing
in service in the light of the said interim orders.
The respondents would be at liberty to proceed against petitioners afresh in
accordance of law, if so advised.
15. Accordingly, present petitions stand allowed.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
