[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bahadur Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8277
1 WP. No. 5683 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 5683 of 2014
BAHADUR SINGH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi - learned counsel for petitioiner.
Shri Rinkesh Goyal - learned 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 Annexure P/1 dated 28.8.2014 passed by
the respondent No.2 Collector be quashed with all consequential
benefits.
(ii) That, other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was a Gram Rojgar
Sahayak. Initially, he was appointed on 06.10.2012 and thereafter his services
were terminated by a stigmatic order dated 25/28.08.2014. It is alleged that
during construction work carried out through a JCB machine in nearby Gram
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8277
Panchayat Aakron, petitioner was present at the time of inspection. On the basis
of statements of villagers, petitioner was shown as the representative of the
Sarpanch. Considering the aforesaid allegation, the Collector issued the
termination order dated 25/28.08.2014. It is further submitted that the impugned
order is a stigmatic in nature and such a stigmatic order cannot be issued without
conducting a proper regular departmental inquiry. It is further submitted that no
charge sheet was issued and no inquiry officer was appointed. The termination
was based merely on a fact-finding inquiry conducted behind the back of
petitioner. The statements of villagers and witnesses were not recorded in the
presence of petitioner and no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to
him. On the basis of this fact-finding inquiry, the services of petitioner were
terminated by the impugned order dated 25/28.08.2014.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order
stating that as per Clause No. 15(2) of the terms and conditions of the
appointment order, the services of petitioner were rightly terminated by the
respondent.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The impugned order dated 25/28.08.2014 (Annexure P/1) is a stigmatic
order, relevant extract of which is reproduced below for ready reference and
convenience:-
**vr% Jh cgknqj flag ;kno xzke jkstxkj lgk;d xkze iapk;r
n;kyiqj ds }kjk nwljs xkze esa tkdj fuekZ.k dk;ksZa esa voS/k :i ls
e'khuksa dk mi;ksx djkdj 'kklu ds lkFk /kksdk/kM+h] 'kkldh; jkf'k
dk nq:i;ksx ,oa ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa dks xqejkg nqLlkgl djuk ,oa
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8277
eujsxk esa ifji= dzekad 02 vuqlkj xkze jkstxkj lgk;d ds
ifjnkf;Roksa ds fuokZgu u djus vkfn ds laca/k esa v|ksgLrk{kjdrkZ
}kjk dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= dk tokc larks"ktud u ik;s tkus ,oa
vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh jktLo vuqHkkx bZlkx<+ }kjk tkap ds vk/kkj ij
mDr dnkpj.k esa e-iz- jkT; jkstxkj xkjaVh ifj"kn ds Kki dzekad
5335@,uvkjbZth,l&,e-ih-@LFkk-@,uvkj&2@12 esa of.kZr izko/kkuksa
ds fu;e 15 dh dafMdk 2 ds rgr Jh cgknqj flag ;kno xkze
jkstxkj lgk;d xkze iapk;r n;kyiqj tuin iapk;r bZlkx<+ dh
lsok lekfIr dh tkrh gSA
;g vkns'k rRdky izHkko ls ykxw gksxkA**
6. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
enquiry. Since impugned order 25/28.8.2014 (Annexure P-1) 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8277
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8277
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8277
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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8277
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.
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8277
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:-
**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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8277
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.
13. 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.
14. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner was a Gram Rojgar Sahayak.
Initially, he was appointed on 06.10.2012 and thereafter his services were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8277
terminated by a stigmatic order dated 25/28.08.2014. It is alleged that during
construction work carried out through a JCB machine in nearby Gram Panchayat
Aakron, petitioner was present at the time of inspection. On the basis of
statements of villagers, petitioner was shown as the representative of the
Sarpanch. Considering the aforesaid allegation, the Collector issued the
termination order dated 25/28.08.2014. The impugned order is a stigmatic in
nature and such a stigmatic order cannot be issued without conducting a proper
regular departmental inquiry. No charge sheet was issued and no inquiry officer
was appointed. The termination was based merely on a fact-finding inquiry
conducted behind the back of petitioner. The statements of villagers and
witnesses were not recorded in the presence of petitioner and no opportunity of
cross-examination was provided to him. On the basis of this fact-finding inquiry,
the services of petitioner were terminated by the impugned order dated
25/28.08.2014.
15. 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 order dated 25/28.8.2014 (Annexure P/1)
is hereby set aside.
16. Consequently, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner
forthwith with all consequential benefits except back wages on the principles of
"no work no pay".
17. However, respondent would be at liberty to take action against petitioner in
accordance with law, if so advised.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8277
18. With the aforesaid, observation, the petition is disposed of.
19. All interlocutory applications, if pending, are disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Ahmad
