1. 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 Annexure P/1 dated 1.7.2017 passed by the respondent no.2-Collector, District Sheopur may kindly be directed to be quashed and the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential and monetary benefits including salary, backwages etc.

          (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 the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of District Coordinator (Contract) under the Swachh Bharat Mission in the year 2012 by the Development Commissioner. Thereafter, from time to time, the services of the petitioner were extended. Subsequently, a show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Sheopur, to which the petitioner duly submitted a reply. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 1.7.2017 was issued by the Collector, Sheopur. It is further submitted that the show-cause notice was issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, whereas the impugned order was passed by the Collector, Sheopur. It is also submitted that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Development Commissioner, and therefore, the Collector and the Chief Executive Officer, being subordinate authorities, were not competent to terminate the services of the petitioner.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 01.07.2017 is stigmatic in nature and that has been passed by the Collector without giving any opportunity of being heard to petitioner and without complying the principles of natural justice, however, the stigmatic order cannot be issued without holding a regular departmental enquiry. Learned counsel for petitioner raised other grounds also.

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.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The impugned order dated 01.07.2017 (Annexure P/1) is a stigmatic order, relevant extract of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-



6. Before issuing impugned order dated 01.07.2017 Annexure P-1, the Collector has neither issued any show-cause notice to petitioner nor has any opportunity of being heard been given to him by Collector, Sheopur and by stigmatic order services of petitioner have been terminated.

7. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any enquiry. Since impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 01.07.2017 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.

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:-

          "(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 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.

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 a regular departmental 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."

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 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 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:-





          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.

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 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 01.07.2017 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. As the petitioner has been continuing on the strength of interim order dated 17.08.2017, 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.

17. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of.

18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is disposed of also.