Gulab Singh Dhakad vs State Of M.P And Others

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 01/10/2018 and

29/06/2019, passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 by which the petitioner's service has been terminated from the post of Sub-Engineer (Contract) by

respondent No.3 by its order dated 1/10/2018 and the appeal filed thereafter against the order dated 1/10/2018 has also been dismissed by the learned

Commissioner by its order dated 29/06/2019.

The petitioner, who was appointed as Sub-Engineer by order dated 12/10/2006(Annexure-P/3) after completion of all due process of selection and

appointment was on contract basis, after his appointment at Khalwa, District - Khandwa he was transferred from Khandwa to Dhar by order dated

26/06/2015(Annexure-P/4) since then he was working in Janpad Panchayat, Tirla, District â€" Dhar as Sub-Engineer(Contract).

That, a show cause notice was issued on 23/05/2018(Annexure-P/5) with an allegation of irregularity in valuation of work and because of the said

irregularity, the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Ambapura have illegally withdrawn a sum of Rs.3.94 Lacs. In response to the show

cause notice, petitioner submitted his reply on 25/05/2018(Annexure-P/6) and denied the allegation levelled against him and also stated that valuation

has been obtained prudently by the Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and also stated that he was recently posted in the Janpad

Panchayt and he was not aware about the work for which the valuation was done and also stated that he had not committed any mistake and not

obtained any money, but without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Collector Dhar, by its order dated 01/10/2018(Annexure-P/1)

passed the order of termination of petitioner without conducting any fact finding enquiry in this regard and, thereafter, submitted the appeal

(Annexure-P/7) but the Appellate Authority has also dismissed the appeal without appreciating the grounds raised in the appeal memo by its order

dated 29/06/2019(Annexure-P/2). Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned termination order passed by the respondents are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.

From perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear that the termination order is a stigmatic order. It is well settled law that there is a difference between

termination simplicitor and stigmatic termination order and stigmatic termination order could not be passed without holding proper enquiry and giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that the entire enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. Thus, in absence of

detailed and proper enquiry, there is no concrete proof against the petitioner and the finding given on the basis of such erroneous enquiry is not

maintainable. He further submits that the learned Collector has erred while passing the impugned order and not appreciating the fact. 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 proper enquiry has

been conducted nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing 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.

The respondents have filed their reply and in the reply they have stated that the proper show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and after

receiving reply from him, order of termination has been passed and the factum of non-issuance of charge sheet and regular enquiry has not been

denied in the reply. It has also been stated that the petitioner was careless and negligent in respect to his work. Learned Govt. Advocate further

submits that as the complaint against the petitioner was found proved in the inspection report, therefore, the services of the petitioner has rightly been

terminated by the Collector concerned.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Engineer by order dated 12/10/2006(Annexure-P/3) after completion of all due process of

selection and appointment was on contract basis, after his appointment at Khalwa, District - Khandwa he was transferred from Khandwa to Dhar by

order dated 26/06/2015(Annexure-P/4) since then he was working in Janpad Panchayat, Tirla, District â€" Dhar as Sub-Engineer(Contract). On

complaints being received against the petitioner regarding negligence of the petitioner in discharging his duty, an inspection was carried out against him

by the higher authorities. On the basis of the said enquiry/inspection report submitted by the higher authorities, the orders impugned has been passed,

thereby removing the petitioner from the services vide order dated 01/10/2018.

From order of removal dated 01/10/2018, it reveals that no enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the impugned order amounts to the stigma

and, therefore, in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi(supra), the services of the contractual employee cannot

be terminated without holding any enquiry if the said order caste stigma on the petitioner. In the present case also, the services of the petitioner have

been terminated on the ground that he was negligent in discharging his duty. However, regarding this no notice has been given to the petitioner.

Therefore, this cannot be considered as one of the ground for terminating the services of the petitioner. The Appellate Authority also while passing the

impugned order has not considered at all this aspect of the matter.

In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 01/10/2018 and 29/06/2019 are hereby set aside

and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in services with 50% back wages, within a period of three months from the date of

certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.