[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Kheroniya S/O Late Shri ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 18 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6232
1 WP. No. 1432 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1432 of 2016
ASHOK KUMAR KHERONIYA S/O LATE SHRI RAJARAM KHERONIYA
THR LRS SMT INDRA KHERONIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Dudawat - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
"(i) Issuing a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order or
direction thereby quashing the impugned order of termination dated
5.2.2016 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.3 with further
direction not to interfere in the working of the petitioner.
(ii) Passing any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii) Costs of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioner."
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was initially
appointed on 31.10.2007. It is further submitted that by the impugned order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6232
05.02.2016 passed by respondent No. 3, the services of original petitioner were
terminated without conducting any regular departmental enquiry. It is further
submitted that the impugned order is stigmatic in nature and therefore, could not
have been issued without conducting a departmental enquiry. It is further
submitted that it is a settled position of law that even in the case of a contractual
employee, the services of petitioner cannot be terminated by a stigmatic order
without holding a departmental enquiry. It is further submitted that the reply to
the show-cause notice was not considered at the time of issuance of the
termination order, which is a non-speaking and unreasoned order. It is further
submitted that during the pendency of the present petition, the original petitioner
expired on 09.02.2019. If the termination order is held to be illegal, the present
petitioner would be entitled to consequential benefits from 05.02.2016 till
09.02.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment
dated 11.07.2023 passed in W.P. No. 3557 of 2014 (Shadab Khan v. State of
M.P. and others), submitting that the said judgment has already been affirmed by
the Division Bench.
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, while vehemently opposing the
submissions put forth by learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that as per
condition mentioned in appointment order, the services of petitioner who has
been appointed on contractual basis for a particular period may be terminated
even before expiry of contractual period and even without giving any notice.
Learned Government Advocate further submitted that detailed fact finding
enquiry has been conducted in respect of the complaint of negligence committed
by petitioner towards his official duties and the fact finding enquiry report was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6232
submitted before the Collector, Shivpuri and on the basis of fact finding enquiry
Collector has passed the impugned order.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The impugned order dated 05.02.2016 (Annexure P/8) is a stigmatic order,
relevant extract of which is reproduced below for ready reference and
convenience:-
r fd;s x;s tkap çfrosnu ds voyksdu ls iq"V
**tcfd tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk çLrq
gksrk gS fd xzke iapk;r /kkeuVwd vik= O;fä o iwoZ ls fufeZr fuekZ.k dk;ksaZ dk
dsVy 'ksM fuekZ.k dk;Z gsrq Loh--fr çnku dh tkuk] dSVy 'ksM ds fuekZ.k
dk;Z ,d o"kZ ls can gksuk 'kkafr/kke fuekZ.k gsrq miq;Dr LFky
dk p;u u fd;k
tkdj vuqi;qDr LFkku
ij &&&&&& dk fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k tkuk ijdksys'ku Vsad
vuqlkj u fd;k tkdj xq.koRrk
pSd Mse dk fuekZ.k rduhfd ekin.M foghu
fuekZ.k ekSdk LFky dh xbZ jkf'k ls
ij ik;s tkuk rFkk fuekZ.k dk;ksaZ ij O;;
fufeZr fuekZ.k dk;Z mi;ksxh ugh ik;s tkus ls 'kkldh; /kujkf'k dk vfu;fer O;;
o nq:i;ksx fd;k tkuk lgh ik;k tkrk gSA
dk;ikZyu ;a=h xzkeh.k ;kaf=dh lsok laHkkx Øekad &1 f'koiqjh }kjk fnukad
10&08&15 ls çLrq r fd;s x;s tkap çfrosnu dks iqf"Vdkjd ekurs gq;s e/;çns
'k
'kklu iapk;r ,oa xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx ea=ky; Hkksiky ds i= Øekad@
4882@,uvkjvkbZth,l&,eih@LFkk@,uvkj&2@12@Hkks
iky fnukad 17&05&12
esa fufgr funsZ'kksa dks ç;ksx esa ykrs gq;s Jh v'kksd [kSjksfu;k mi;a=h lafonk eujsxk
tuin iapk;r cnjokl dh lafonk lsok tkjh vkns'k fnukad ls rRdky çHkko ls
lekIr dh tkrh gSA
;g vkns'k rRdky çHkko'khy gksxkA**
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6232
6. The impugned order dated 05.02.2016 (Annexure P-8) passed by the
Collector, Shivpuri regarding termination of petitioner from services is stigmatic
in nature.
7. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
regular departmental enquiry. Since impugned order Annexure P-8 dated
05.02.2016 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.
8. 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 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. 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:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6232
"(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."
9. 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.
10. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6232
(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."
11. 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 termination is made in a simplicitor manner without
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6232
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."
12. 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
number of complaints has been received against the petitioner. After
receiving the complaints a Committee was constituted for conducting
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6232
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(Annexure-
P/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.
13. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.04.2024 in Writ
Petition No.9065/2014 [Nilesh Vs. State of M.P. and Others - Indore Bench]
has held as under:
6. ........... The appointment was made under the directions
issued by MANREGA in which the procedure for appointment as
well as the procedure for termination are provided. Clause 15 of the
guidelines deals with appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. There is
a provision for discipline and control. Under Clause 15 (2) of the
aforesaid guidelines, the Collector is having the power to terminate
the services of Gram Rojgar Sahayak as well as under Clause 16 the
services are liable to be terminated on 8 grounds which are
reproduced as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6232
**16- lafonk lsok lekfIRk & xzke jkstxkj lgk;d dh lafonk lsok vof/k iw.kZ
gksus ds iwoZ fuEu fo'ks"k fLFkfr;ksa esa xzke iapk;r }kjk lekIr dh tk ldsaxh&
1- lsok vof/k ds nkSjku O;fDrxr ,oa ukeTkn vkijkf/kd izdj.k ds laca/k esa
izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ (FIR)@Charge gksus ij vFkok 48 ?k.Vs ls vf/kd fu:)
jgus ijA
2- vf/kd`r izf'k{k.k esa vuqifLFkr gksus vFkok izf'k{k.k dks i;kZIr dkj.k cxSj
e/; vof/k esa NksMus ij vFkok izf'k{k.k esa vU; xaHkhj ykijokgh djus ijA
3- oXkSj lwpuk ds ,d ekg ls vf/kd eq[;ky; esa vuqifLFkr gksus ijA
4- Lo;a dk R;kxi= nsus ijA
5- lacaf/kr ds ikxy@fnokfy;k ?kksf"kr gksus ijA
6- vfu;fer o =qfViw.kZ fu;qfDr izekf.kr gksus ijA
7- eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh ftyk iapk;r }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqØe esa
vfu;ferk ,oa dRRkZO; fuoZgu esa ?kksj ykijokgh izekf.kr gksus ijA
8- xzke iapk;r dk vfLrRo lekIr gksus ijA**
7. As per Clause 7 of the guidelines, in case of gross negligence
in the duty and irregularities there should be an order by Chief
Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat. Unless the charges are proved then
only Gram Rojgar Sahayak can be terminated from the service. So
far as the issuance of show cause notices is concerned these notices
were not given before proposing termination from service or
proposing imposition of any penalty, therefore, it cannot be treated as
show cause notice before the termination from service. Even in these
show cause notices very vague allegations are made about the delay
in the construction of toilets, whereas in the final order, no such
figure has been given as to how many toilets were sanctioned and
how many were not completed or constructed by the petitioner. No
such findings have been recorded and only on the basis of vague
allegations about negligence in duty, the petitioner has been
terminated. Therefore, the order not only suffers from violation of
principles of natural justice but it is a stigmatic order.
8. In the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission reported in 2001
(3) MPLJ 616, that the order is unsustainable in law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6232
14. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.10.2019 in Writ
Petition No.7916/2019 [Mahesh Kumar Maru S/o Bhagirah Maru Vs. State
of M.P. and others - Indore Bench] has held as under:
6. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is working on
the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and neither any chargesheet has
been issued to the petitioner at any point of time nor any enquiry was
conducted with the participation of the petitioner. This Court in the
case of Ramchandra vs. State of M.P. and others decided in W.P.
No.16572/2014 on 02/08/2017 several other writ petition on the
subject under consideration before this Court in the present petition.
7. So far availability of the alternative remedy is concerned, the
impugned stigmatic order of termination has been passed contrary to
the settled law and without following the principle of natural justice.
Hence, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Whirlpool Corporation and other vs. RegistrarTrade Mark and others
reported in AIR 1999 SC 22 alternative remedy is no bar for filing a
petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
8. In the light of the aforesaid as no charge-sheet was issued to
the petitioner and no enquiry has been conducted, the impugned
order dated 22/02/2019 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondents
deserves to be quashed and is 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.
15. 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.
16. Considering the aforesaid pronouncements, entire gamut of the matter, 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.), further considering the judgment in Shadab Khan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6232
(supra), in view of the fact that the original petitioner expired on 09.02.2019 and
his widow has been substituted as the present petitioner and that the services of
the original petitioner were terminated by a stigmatic and non-speaking order,
the petition is allowed and the impugned termination order dated 05.02.2016 is
hereby quashed. Further considering the judgment in Shadab Khan (supra), the
respondents are directed to pay 50% back wages to the petitioner (widow of the
original petitioner) for the period from 05.02.2016 till 09.02.2019.
17. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of.
18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Ahmad
