Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghvendra Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55365
1 WP-6058-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 4 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6058 of 2025
RAGHVENDRA YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vishnu Deo Singh Chauhan - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Ajay Ojha - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P/5 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was working as a Gram Rojgar Sahayak and vide order dated 20.12.2020 (Annexure P/5), his services have been terminated on the ground that in the year 2020-2021, the progress of work is slow and the requisite man-days of work have not been provided to the residents of the village which amounts to negligence and misconduct in discharge of his duties. It is contended that no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and also that the allegations against the petitioner in the manner of slow progress of works in the Panchayat did not amount to any major misconduct warranting dismissal from service. Apart from mentioning that the progress of work is slow, nothing more has been mentioned in the impugned order of termination of services. It is contended Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-11-2025 10:32:26 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55365 2 WP-6058-2025 that the aforesaid period was the first wave of Covid-19 pandemic and this issue has not at all been considered by the authorities while terminating the services of the petitioner.
3. Per contra, it is contended by the counsel for the State that the petitioner was only a contractual employee and also that he had filed an appeal before the Commissioner with a delay of about two and a half years and coupled with the fact that the progress of work was slow, no indulgence needs to be made in the present case.
4. Upon hearing the rival parties, it is seen that against the order Annexure P-5 initially the petitioner had preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 03.07.2023 on the ground of delay, but thereafter, the matter was remanded by this Court in W.P. No.15735/2023 directing to decide the appeal on merits and thereafter the appeal has been decided by the Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal on merits vide order dated 11.02.2025.
5. The impugned order Annexure P-5 has been passed on the ground that the progress of work is not as per the expected progress and not as per the targets. The authority has found out that despite notice being issued, the progress of work has not been speeded up. The authority in the order Annexure P-5 also seems to be displeased with the fact that in two review meetings the petitioner was absent.
6. From the perusal of the entire order Annexure P-5, it does not appear that there was any major misconduct of the petitioner which could not be corrected by way of any other disciplinary action. From perusal of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-11-2025 10:32:26 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55365 3 WP-6058-2025 termination order Annexure P-5, it appears that the authority was more displeased with the fact that in two review meetings the petitioner remained absent and then searched out some lethargy in progress of works in the Gram Panchayat and terminated his services.
7. It is well known that Financial Year 2020-2021 was affected by the first wave of Covid-19 pandemic and the respondents had to show some relaxation in the matter of slow achievement of work progress during the said period. However, the respondents have not at all considered the said aspect in the order Annexure P/5 and only on the ground that the work progress in the Gram Panchayat is slow, the order of termination has been passed. This is despite the position that in response to show cause notice the petitioner had countered the allegation on the ground that the petitioner has already submitted the action plan but the authority disbelieved it on the ground that the action plan is not uploaded on the MGNREGA Portal.
8. Be that as it may be, but it does not appear to be a case where the petitioner had exhibited such a conduct could have led to forming of opinion that the retention of the petitioner in service is counter productive to public interest or that the petitioner could not be corrected or disciplined to act and work in a more efficient manner. The authority seems to be under impression that termination is the only way out in such cases where any disciplinary action is required to be taken against Gram Rojgar Sahayak.
9. Consequently, the impugned termination order Annexure P/5 so also the consequential appellate orders are set aside. The petitioner shall be allowed to rejoin the duties forthwith.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-11-2025 10:32:26NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55365 4 WP-6058-2025
10. The petitioner shall also be entitled to 25% of back-wages for the intervening period.
11. The respondents shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order, but which will be of some minor penalty and the same shall not be an order of termination of services.
12. With the aforesaid liberty and direction, the petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE psm Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-11-2025 10:32:26