[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Milan Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 12 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1276
1 WP. No.1149 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 12th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1149 of 2017
SMT. MILAN YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Mohd. Amir Khan -
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Jain - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
"(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may
kindly be allowed;
(ii) That, the impugned order dated 18.1.2017
Annexure P/1 passed by the Project Officer, I.C.D.S.
may kindly be directed to be set aside. The services of
the petitioner may kindly be directed to remain
continue with all consequential benefits and
backwages, if any.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1276
(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which
this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be
granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour
of the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on
post of Aaganwadi Worker on 18.3.2013. The Government had issued the policy
dated 10.7.2007 regulating the services condition and recruitment to the post of
Aanganwadi Worker. It is further submitted that service of an employee like the
petitioner can be terminated in the light of the provision contained and the
manner indicated in the policy. It is further submitted that proper opportunity of
being heard to petitioner was not provided before her termination. Initially, show
cause notice was issued to petitioner on 26.12.2012 by respondent stating that
petitioner is not residing at Headquarters Village Kurachorkhurd and she is
residing in Pohari. Petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice. It is further
submitted that petitioner is the permanent resident of Village Kurachorkhurd,
Tahsil Karahal, District Sheopur. Certificate of gram panchayat with respect to
the house and property and residence of petitioner (annexure P/7) and
Panchnama to the said effect has been placed on record as Annexure P/8. The
certificate was also issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary. Without considering
the aforesaid reply i.e. on 16.1.2017 when petitioner was in the meeting of the
Supervisor, the Collector directed physical inspection of Aaganwadi Center and
on 16.1.2017 notice was issued. It is further submitted that impugned order is
stigmatic, non-speaking and unreasoned by which the services of petitioner were
terminated/removed.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that the
petitioner was not present at the place of posting, i.e., Village Kurachorkhurd,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1276
District Tahsil Karahal, District Sheopur; therefore, a show-cause notice was
issued to the petitioner. Higher Officers inspected the Anganwadi Centre and
found that petitioner was absent; therefore, order of removal was passed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record.
5. The impugned order dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure P/1) is a stigmatic order,
which is reproduced below:-
Jherh feyu ;kno] vka-ck-dk;ZdrkZ] vka-ck-dsUnz dqjkpksj[kqnZ dks eq[;ky; ij fuokl u djds iksgjh es
fuokl djus ds dkj.k dk;kZy;hu dkj.k crkvksa lwpuk i= dz- 1378 djkgy fnukad 26-12-2016 tkjh
fd;k x;k Fkk] ftldk tokc larks"ktud ugh ik;k x;kA iwoZ esa Hkh dbZ ckj Jherh feyu ;kno dks
lsDVj Ik;Zos{kd ,oa ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk vius eq[;ky; ij jgus o fu;fer dsUnz lapkyu gsrq
le>kbZ'k nh xbZA v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ ds }kjk djk;s x;s HkkSfrd lR;kiu ,oa fnukad 16-01-2017 dks
dysDVj egksn; ds vkns'k ij pyk;s x;s l?ku fujh{k.k vfHk;ku ds nkSjku ik;k x;k] fd Jherh
feyu ;kno eq[;ky; ij fuokl ugh djrh gSA
pwafd vk-ck-dk;ZdrkZ dk in ,d csgn laosnu'khy o egRoiw.kZ in gS] ftlds }kjk 0&5 o"kZ ds cPpksa
dk otu ysuk] f'k{kk] LokLF;] Vhdkdj.k] iks"k.k dh tkudkjh iznku djuk] lkFk gh /kk=h ,oa xHkZorh
efgykvksa o vfrde otu ds cPpks ds ifjokjksa ls HksaV dj LokLF;xr leL;k ,oa iks"k.k ls lcaf/kr
tkudkjh nsuk] iwjd iks"k.k vkgkj iznk; djuk] Vhdkjdj.k dk egRo crkuk ,oa fd'kksjh ckfydkvksa
dks iwjd iks"k.k vkgkj iznk; djuk] xksn HkjkbZ] vUuizklUu] tUe fnol] cky pkSiky] ykMyh y{eh
;kstuk vkfn tudY;k.kdkjh dk;Zdzeksa dk vk;kstu fd;k tkrk gSA Jherh feyu ;kno ds }kjk
eq[;ky; ij fuoklh u djus ds dkj.k mDr lHkh 'kklu dh egrh ,oa tudY;k.kdkjh ;kstukvksa dk
ykHk xzkeokfl;ksa ,oa okafNr fgrxzkfg;ksa dks ugh fey ik jgk gSA
uSflZxd U;k; ds fl)kar dk ikyu djrs gq;s ,oa lquokbZ dk i;kZIr volj iznku djrs gq;s Jherh
feyu ;kno dks fu;fer dsUnz lapkyu u djuk] eq[;ky; ij fuokl u djuk ckj&ckj ofj"B
vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk djuk ,oa 'kkldh; lsok ds izfr ykijokgh rFkk mnklhurk
iznf'kZr djus ds fy;s e-iz- 'kklu efgyk ,oa cky fodkl foHkkx Hkksiky ds Kki dz-@,Q
3&2@06@50&2 Hkksiky fnukad 10-07-2007 dh dafMdk dz ¼1½ ,oa eq[;ky; ij fuokl u djus gsrq
lapkyuky; ds i= dz- 1503@izl@eckfo@2014 Hkksiky fnukad 20-11-2014 ds vk/kkj ij lsok ls
i`Fkd fd;k tkrk gSA
¼mDr vkns'k rRdky izHkko'khy gksxk½
6. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
regular departmental enquiry. Since impugned order Annexure P-1 dated
18.1.2017 is stigmatic in nature, therefore, regular departmental enquiry ought to
have been held by respondents. The judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1276
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 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;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1276
(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
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 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1276
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 (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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1276
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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1276
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.
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:-
n& vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk ds in ls gVkus dh izfØ;k &
¼1½ ;fn vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk }kjk vkaxuokM+h dsUnz dk lapkyu
fu;ekuqlkj ugha fd;k tkrk gS vFkok muds }kjk vius dRkZO;ksa ,oa nkf;Roksa ds fuogZu
esa ykijokgh dh tkrh gS rks ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh@efgyk ,oa cky fodkl ds vU; mPp
vf/kdkjh }kjk vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks lquokbZ dk volj nsrs gq, tkap esa
nks"kh ik;s tkus ij in ls i`Fkd fd;k tk ldsxkA
Admittedly, no regular departmental enquiry has been conducted and
stigmatic termination order has been passed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1276
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 18.01.2017
(Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. As the petitioner has been continuing on the
strength of interim order dated 17.2.2017, 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
ahmad
