[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Snehlata Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6044
1 WP-18743-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 18743 of 2017
KU. SNEHLATA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Sing Raghuvansi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 20.09.2017 be
quashed with all consequential benefits.
(ii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the
permanent resident of Village Piproda Gram Panchayat Jhadel Block Kolaras
Distt. Shivpuri. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Aanganwadi
worker in the year 2010. One complaint has been registered on CM help line
and thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and without
conducting any regular departmental enquiry, services of petitioner has been
terminated by stigmatic termination order dated 20.09.2017. The stigmatic
termination order cannot be issued, without conducting any regular
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6044
2 WP-18743-2017
departmental enquiry.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supports the
impugned order and opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and submits that the petitioner was not residing/present at the place
of posting i.e. Piproda and various show cause notices have been issued to
the petitioner and after considering the aforesaid fact, the services of
petitioner were terminated.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
5. The impugned order dated 20.09.2017 (Annexure P/1) is a stigmatic
order, which is reproduced below:-
"कायालय एक कृ त बाल वकास प रयोजना कोलारस े अंतगत
आंगनबाड़ के पपरौदा म पद थ आं.बा. कायकता कु. नेहलता शमा
क ा सी.एम. हे पलाईन िशकायत . 3249263 दनांक 27.01.2017
क जांच सह पाये जाने एवं नेहलता शमा ारा पपरौदा म िनवास न
करते हुए, बदरवास वकास ख ड के ाम ीपुर च क ए.बी. रोड
बदरवास म िनवास करना, आ.बा. के संचालन न करना, प रयोजना
अिधकार आई.सी.ड एस कोलारस ारा कायकता नेहलता शमा से
मोबाईल पर बात क गई जसमे नेहलता शमा ारा वयं को मंगलबार
दनांक 19.09.2017 को दोपहर 01:00 बजे ाम ीपुर बदरवास मे
िनवास थान पर होना बताया गया, आं.बा. के पर न जाना बताया
जाकर फोन काट दया गया। से टर पयवे क ारा ा जांच ितवेदन
म भी पाया गया क कु. नेहलता शमा आ.बा. के संचािलत नह
करती है , सहाियका ममता गुजर ारा ह के संचालन, पोषण आहार
वतरण, ट .एच.आर. वतरण कया जाना पाया गया। ाम पपरोदा
आ दवासी एवं ह रजन बाहु य े है चू ं क कायकता ारा ाम िनवास
न कर, के संचालन न करते हुए, ब च का वजन न िलया जाना,
कुपो षत ब च का िच हांकन न कया जाना, ब च को एन आर सी भत
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6044
3 WP-18743-2017
न कराया जाना, काय सुधार क समझाईश दये जाने के प ात भी काय
सुधार न कया जाना पाया गया है । अतः इससे तीत होता है क कु.
नहे लता शमा क के संचालन एवं वभागीय योजनाओं म कोई िच
नह है । अतः कु. नेहलता शमा को ाम िनवास न करने, के
संचािलत न करने, कुपो षत ब च का िच हांकन न करने, मािसक
गित ितवेदन रपोट समय पर न दये जाने से आंगनबाड के क
सेवाय अ यिधक भा वत होने से, आंगनबाड कायकता ाम पपरौदा
के कायकता पद से पृथक कया जाता है ।
उ आदे श त काल भावशील होगा ।"
6. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
regular departmental enquiry. Since impugned order Annexure P-1 dated
20.09.2017 is stigmatic in nature, therefore, regular departmental enquiry
ought to have been held by respondents. The judgment passed by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court 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.) are worth
mentioning.
7. 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
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 a regular
departmental inquiry. This Court is further supported in its view by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6044
4 WP-18743-2017
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 . 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 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."
8. From the aforesaid, it is clear that impugned order is stigmatic in
nature, therefore, without conducting regular departmental enquiry impugned
order cannot be issued. The impugned termination order has been issued
without giving any proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner and without
conducting regular departmental enquiry. From the language of impugned
order, it is clear that it is a stigmatic termination order.
9. It is settled position that if the order of termination is stigmatic in
nature, the same entails serious consequences on future prospects of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6044
5 WP-18743-2017
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."
10. 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 (para5 of the said judgment) that Normally
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6044
6 WP-18743-2017
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."
11. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.02.2024
passed in WP.5856/2020 [Devkaran Patidar Vs. State of M.P. And others
(Indore Bench)] has also decided the similar issue in the following manner:
"4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
orders are illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that the
respondent no.4 without considering the provisions of 15.01,
15.02 and 16 of the scheme according to which the respondent
no.4, is not empowered to terminate the service of the petitioner,
and the aforesaid impugned order Annexure-P/1 has been wrongly
uphold. He further submits that the respondents have acted in high
handed manner and without following the instructions/guidelines
issued by the Higher Authorities, issued the impugned termination
order. Thus, the action of the respondents is unjust and arbitrary.
In the present case, neither any charge-sheet has been issued
against the petitioner nor any enquiry has been conducted before
passing of the impugned stigmatic order. In such circumstances,
he prays that the impugned orders be set aside. He further relied
on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi
vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal 2001 (3) MPLJ 616
and Prakash Chandra Kein vs. State of M.P. and others 2010 (3)
MPLJ 179.
5. The respondents have filed the reply and has submitted that a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6044
7 WP-18743-2017
number of complaints has been received against the petitioner.
After receiving the complaints a Committee was constituted for
conducting an enquiry against the petitioner and on the basis of
the enquiry report submitted by the Committee a show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner and after giving opportunity to
the petitioner to file reply, the respondent has terminated the
services. In such circumstances, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is working on the
post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and neither any charge-sheet has
been issued to the petitioner at any point of time nor any enquiry
was conducted with the participation of the petitioner. This Court
has passed the judgment in the case of Ramchandra vs. State of
M.P. and others decided in W.P. No.16572/2014 on 02/08/2017
and several other writ petitions on the subject are under
consideration before this Court.
8. In the light of the aforesaid as no charge-sheet was issued to the
petitioner and no enquiry has been conducted, the impugned
orders dated 12.06.2017(Annexure-P/1) and
27.08.2016(AnnexureP/2), passed by the respondents deserves to
be quashed and are accordingly, quashed. The respondents are
directed to reinstate the petitioner in service; however a liberty is
granted to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law,
in case if need so arises in future."
12. The policy of the State Government dated 10.07.2007 provides for
removal of Aanganwadi Worker from services and the same clearly reflects
that Project Officer/other higher officer of department of Women & Child
Development cannot discontinue without holding an enquiry, relevant extract
of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-
"द- आंगनवाड कायकता / सहाियका के पद से हटाने क या -
(1) य द आंगनवाड़ कायकता / सहाियका ारा आंगनवाड़ के का
संचालन िनयमानुसार नह ं कया जाता है अथवा उनके ारा अपने
कत य एवं दािय व के िनवहन म लापरवाह क जाती है तो प रयोजना
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6044
8 WP-18743-2017
अिधकार / म हला एवं बाल वकास के अ य उ च अिधकार ारा
आंगनवाड़ कायकता/सहाियका को सुनवाई का अवसर दे ते हुए जांच म
दोषी पाये जाने पर पद से पृथक कया जा सकेगा।"
Admittedly, no regular departmental enquiry has been conducted and
stigmatic termination order has been passed.
13. In light of aforesaid discussion, it is seen that no charge-sheet was
issued to petitioner and no regular departmental enquiry has been conducted
and the impugned stigmatic order has been passed.
14. Considering the aforesaid pronouncements, entire gamut of the
matter and also the fact that the present petition is covered by order dated
25.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.23267/2019 (Omprakash Gurjar Vs.
Panchayat and Rural Development & Ors.), the impugned termination order
dated 20.09.2017 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. As the petitioner has
been continuing on the strength of interim order dated 10.11.2017, there is
no need to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, however,
respondent/State would be at liberty to proceed against petitioner in
accordance with law, in case if need so arises in future.
15. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
