Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shaida Bee vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29861
1 WP. No. 8270 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 20th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8270 of 2016
SMT. SHAIDA BEE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Kumar Sharma - Senior Advocate with Ms. Krati Sachdev -
learned counsel 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) the order annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed/set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with full consequential benefits,
ii) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case including costs may also be granted,"
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government has framed statutory rules known as the M.P. Khel Aur Yuvak Kalyan Samvida Khel Prashikshak (Niyojan Tatha Seva Ki Shartein) Niyam, 2006. It is further submitted that after undergoing the selection process, the petitioner was initially Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 11/21/2025 11:29:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29861 2 WP. No. 8270 of 2016 appointed as Rural Coach, District Gwalior, vide order dated 30.06.2006. Thereafter, openings arose for the post of Sports Coach Grade II in District Morena. The petitioner applied for the same and was appointed as Sports Coach Grade II vide order dated 27.08.2009. The petitioner was serving the respondent Department since then to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities and she has been awarded certificates of appreciation from time to time. The contractual appointment of petition was also renewed periodically. It is further submitted that without issuing any notice, without affording any opportunity of hearing, and without conducting a regular departmental enquiry, the respondent No.2 passed a stigmatic termination order dated 21.11.2016. In the said order, it has been mentioned that the petitioner's performance was not up to the mark, her conduct was improper, and certain acts of indiscipline were attributed to her; on these grounds, her contractual appointment was terminated. It is further submitted that it is a settled position of law that even a contractual or temporary employee cannot be terminated in a stigmatic manner without conducting a regular departmental enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 528/2015 (Paramjeet Singh and another v. State of M.P. and others).
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State submits that no such procedural requirement or issuance of notice prior to renewal the services of petitioner is necessary. It is further submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a Contract Sports Coach and as per Clause 7, her services could be terminated at any point of time. It is further submitted that the petitioner failed to discharge her duties on several occasions and deliberately did Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 11/21/2025 11:29:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29861 3 WP. No. 8270 of 2016 not complete the work assigned to her and on various occasions she remained absent without justification. It is further submitted that the contractual services of the petitioner can be discontinued if her services are not found satisfactory. The contract of petitioner came to an end on 31.08.2016. On aforesaid ground learned counsel for respondents/State supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of present petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The impugned order dated 21.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) is a stigmatic order, relevant extract of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-
**d`i;k fo"k;karxZr lanfHkZr i= dk voyksdu djsA ftyk eqjSuk ds uhps n'kkZ;s vuqlkj lafonk ftyk [ksy izf'k{kd ds dk;Z O;ogkj] vkpj.k] dk;Z izn'kZu ,oa izf'k{k.k {kerk vlk/kj.k o valrks"ktud gksus ls e0iz0 'kklu] [ksy vkSj ;qok dY;k.k foHkkx lafonk lsok [ksy izf'k{kd HkrhZ fu;e ¼fu;kstu ,oa lsok dh 'krZ½ fu;e 2006 ds fu;e 10¼1½ rFkk e0iz0 'kklu] [ksy vkSj ;qok dY;k.k foHkkx lafonk lsok [ksy izf'k{kd HkrhZ fu;e ¼fu;kstu ,oa lsok dh 'krsZ½ fu;e 2006 ds vuqlkj fuEu lafonk deZpkfj;ksa dh lafonk lsok o`f+) ugha djus dk vuqeksnu iznku fd;k tkrk gSA**
6. Before issuing impugned order dated 21.11.2016 Annexure P-1, the respondent has neither issued any show-cause notice to petitioner nor has any opportunity of being heard been given to him 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 21.11.2016 is stigmatic in nature, therefore, regular departmental enquiry ought to have been held by Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 11/21/2025 11:29:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29861 4 WP. No. 8270 of 2016 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 a Regular Departmental Enquiry. 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;Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 11/21/2025 11:29:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29861 5 WP. No. 8270 of 2016
(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 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 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."Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 11/21/2025 11:29:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29861 6 WP. No. 8270 of 2016
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.Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 11/21/2025 11:29:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29861 7 WP. No. 8270 of 2016
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.Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 11/21/2025 11:29:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29861 8 WP. No. 8270 of 2016
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:-
**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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 11/21/2025 11:29:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29861 9 WP. No. 8270 of 2016 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.
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:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 11/21/2025 11:29:07 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29861 10 WP. No. 8270 of 2016
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 21.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits to petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. As the petitioner has been continuing on Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 11/21/2025 11:29:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29861 11 WP. No. 8270 of 2016 the strength of interim order dated 22.02.2017, 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 applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat) Judge ahmad Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 11/21/2025 11:29:07 AM