Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kashiram Mahor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24116
1 WP-23182-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 26th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 23182 of 2019
KASHIRAM MAHOR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Girija Shankar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel - Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Satendra Singh Rawat - Advocate for respondent No.7.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the impugned orders annexure P/1, P/2, P/3 and P/11
may kindly be quahsed.
(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to re-instate the
petitioner in service and paid the salary with consequential benefit
to the petitioner.
(iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."
2. The brief facts of the case, in short, are that initially, petitioner was
appointed on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak vide order dated 20.03.2013
and posted in Gram Panchayat Jabrol, Janpad Panchayat Sabalgarh, Distt.-
Morena (M.P.). Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Officer, Sabalgarh issued a
show cause notice dated 30.05.2016 to the petitioner whereby it is directed
that a complaint has been filed and the inquiry has been conducted by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24116
2 WP-23182-2019
Banwarilal Dhakad PCO whereby it is found that the Sarpanch Mahesh
Chandra and Secretary Shri Ganesh Rawat and Rojgar Sahayak Kashiram
Mahor issued the Muster Roll no.319 dated 02.07.2015 to 07.07.2015
whereby the payment has been made to the dead person. Thereafter, the
petitioner has submitted reply and mentioned that no payment has been
withdrawn only the name of labouror has been mentioned on the Muster Roll
but that name has been mentioned by him and he has not issued any Muster
Roll to the deceased person.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before issuing show
cause notice by respondents, petitioner has already submitted a complaint
dated 28.11.2015 and stating that petitioner did not submit any demand in
respect of Muster Roll No.116, 319 and 860 but the Sarpanch by misusing
his password the demand has been done by him and the money has been
withdrawn by him. Thereafter, CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Morena has issued a
show cause notice dated 26.08.2016 whereby the petitioner has been directed
to submit the reply within 7 days. The inquiry report along-with show cause
notice was also supplied to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the
inquiry is fact finding inquiry and at the time of inquiry no opportunity of
being heard was provided to the petitioner and behind the back of the
petitioner, inquiry has been conducted and on the basis of inquiry report and
without considering the reply, services of the petitioner has been terminated
by order dated 21.02.2017 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, petitioner has
preferred the Appeal which has been rejected by order dated 30.10.2017 and
thereafter, the petitioner has preferred Second Appeal which has also been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24116
3 WP-23182-2019
rejected by order dated 20.09.2019. It is also submitted that the termination
order is stigmatic in nature and no opportunity of being heard was provided
to the petitioner during the inquiry. The said inquiry was conducted behind
the back of the petitioner, in violation of the principles of natural justice."
4. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents have submitted that
after giving show cause notice, services of the petitioner was terminated and
as per Clause Nos. 15 and 17 of the appointment order dated 20.03.2013, the
services of the petitioner have been terminated after affording an opportunity
of hearing, which reads as under:
"15. सं वदा पर िनयु य के कदाचार या कसी आपरािधक
याकलाप म संिल पाये जाने पर िनयु ािधकार उसे सुनबाई का
यु यु अवसर दे ने के प ात ् ऐसी सं वदा िनयु समा कर सकेगा।
17. सं वदा िनयु पर िनयु अिधकार /कमचार क सेवाए िनधा रत
अविध के पूव सं था ारा बना कसी नो टस के समा क जा सकेगी।"
It is further submitted that the petitioner has admitted his fault as per
reply dated 10.10.2016 and as per complaint dated 28.11.2015. They relied
upon the order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Manoj Rajput
Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. passed on 28.07.2022 in W.P.No.847/2022.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The impugned termination order dated 21.02.2017 is stigmatic in
nature and important part of the aforesaid order reads as under:-
" ी काशीराम माहौर ाम रोजगार सहायक ाम पंचायत जाबरोल के
ारा ाम पंचायत म मृतक मजदरू ी टे सूराम रतनू क मजदरू क
रािश का भुगतान कराने म दोषी पाया गया है । जांच ितवेदन म दोषी
पाये जाने पर इसक सं वदा सेवा म य दे श रा य रोजगाार गार ट
प रषद भोपाल के प ./5335/NREGS MP/ था./NR-2/12/भोपाल
दनांक 02-06-2012 के जार नवीन दशा िनदशो के तहत िनयमानुसार
सं वदा सेवा समा कया जाना ता वत कया गया है ।"
7. The petitioner has already made complaint dated 28.11.2015
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24116
4 WP-23182-2019
(Annexure P/9) to CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Sabalgarh, District Morena and
also submitted reply dated 10.10.2016 in which mentioned that by mistake
the name of deceased Tesuram and Ratanu has been mentioned in Muster
Roll and the petitioner has only submitted that by mistake he has entered the
name of deceased Tesuram and Ratanu in Muster Roll and he has not
admitted that any misconduct has been committed by him and even in
complaint dated 28.11.2015 (Annexure P/9), the petitioner has requested to
do inquiry and take proper action against Sarpanch. Therefore, it is clear that
petitioner has not admitted alleged the misconduct and alleged the
misconduct can be proved only by holding the regular department inquiry in
which the petitioner has also given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore,
the order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court cited by the respondents in case
of Manoj Kumar (Supra) is not applicable in the present case.
8. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
enquiry. Since impugned order dated 21.02.2017 (Annexure P-3) is stigmatic in
nature, therefore, regular departmental enquiry ought to have been held by
respondents. 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.) .
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24116
5 WP-23182-2019
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 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."
10. From the aforesaid, it is clear that impugned order is stigmatic in
nature, therefore, without conducting regular departmental enquiry impugned
order cannot be issued by respondents. The impugned termination order has
been issued without departmental enquiry. From the language of impugned
order, it is clear that it is a stigmatic termination order.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24116
6 WP-23182-2019
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 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:
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24116
7 WP-23182-2019
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 show cause notice dated 24.08.2016 was issued by the
respondent/CEO, Zila Panchayat, Morena by which 07 days' time has been
granted to the petitioner to file reply and aforesaid show cause notice has
been received by the petitioner on 15.09.2016 and before waiting the reply of
the petitioner, CEO, Zila Panchayat, Morena had directed to terminate the
services of the petitioner by order dated 16.09.2016.
14. The impugned termination order dated 21.02.2017 (Annexure P/3)
and Appeal rejection order dated 30.10.2017 (Annexure P/2) and Second
Appeal rejection order dated 20.09.2019 (Annexure P/1) are hereby set aside
and consequently, the respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioner
along-with consequential benefits except back wages. However, the
respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance
with law, if so advised.
15. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24116
8 WP-23182-2019
