Smt. Munni Bai Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2026

                          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8150



                                                                    1                WP. No. 1007 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 9th OF MARCH, 2026
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 1007 of 2017

                                                SMT. MUNNI BAI YADAV
                                                       Versus
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS


                          Appearance:
                          Shri S.K. Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
                          Shri Shiraz Qureshi - 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 impugned order dated 16.11.2010 Annex. P/1 and order dated 26.11.2011 Annex. P/3 and order dated 22.11.2016 Annex. P/6 may kindly be quashed.

(ii) That, respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all benefits.

(iii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition."

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by the stigmatic impugned order dated 16.11.2010, the services of petitioner were terminated by the respondent. Such a stigmatic order can only be passed after conducting a regular

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8150

departmental inquiry. It is further submitted that without issuing any show-cause notice to petitioner, without following the principles of natural justice and without conducting a departmental inquiry, stigmatic order has been passed by the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2010, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority; however, the appellate authority also failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and rejected the appeal vide order dated 26.11.2011.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order, stating that as per the appointment order, the services of the petitioner could be terminated at any point of time. The respondent has rightly terminated the petitioner from service.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of record reveals that by the stigmatic impugned order dated 16.11.2010, the services of petitioner were terminated by the respondent. Such a stigmatic order can only be passed after conducting a regular departmental inquiry. Without issuing any show-cause notice to petitioner, without following the principles of natural justice and without conducting a departmental inquiry, stigmatic order has been passed by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority; however, the appellate authority also failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and rejected the appeal vide order dated 26.11.2011.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8150

6. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any regular departmental enquiry. Since impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 16.11.2010 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 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:-

"(19) To summarize: the reasonable opportunity envisaged by the provision under consideration includes-

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8150

(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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8150

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 (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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8150

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 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,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8150

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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8150

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 facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of in following terms:

(i) The impugned termination order dated 16.11.2010(Annexure P/1), appeal rejection order dated 26.11.2011 and order dated 22.11.2016 are hereby set aside.