Kallu Singh @ Hakim Singh & Ors. vs State of M.P.

The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the impugned termination order dated 30.05.2014 issued by respondent No. 3 as well as

impugned letter-cum-order dated 14.03.2014.

Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2008 the respondents have published an advertisement for appointment on the post of Block Co-

ordinator on contract basis under the Rajya Jal Swachhata Mission throughout sourcing. As the petitioner was fulfilling the requisite qualifications,

she, therefore, submitted an application for appointment on the said posts. After facing the recruitment process, she was appointed on the post of

Block Coordinator vide order dated 27.06.2008 and was posted at Teonthar. Although, the appointment was for a period of one year, however,

the same was extendable on the basis of personal assessment and performance of employee. The petitioner had performed her duties efficiently

with no complaint or enquiry, whatsoever. Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to the petitioner and other employees by respondent No. 4

alleging certain irregularities in performing the work. The petitioner and other employees they have personally met respondent Nos. 3 and 4

apprising their practical problems. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with show cause notices on the same dated i.e. 13.01.2014 whereby it has

been alleged that the petitioner has failed to perform her duties diligently and has not filed the requisite reports in time. She was asked to submit her

explanation. The petitioner filed her reply on 17.01.2014 whereby she has submitted her detailed explanation. However, without considering the

reply submitted by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 has passed an order dated 14.03.2014 thereby a proposal was sent to respondent No. 2 for

terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted her detailed reply on 22.03.2014, however, respondent No. 2 had passed

an order dated 30.05.2014 thereby terminating the services of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present

petition.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the entire action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner

is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted by the respondents before passing the impugned order. He submits

that the order of termination is a stigmatic order and, therefore, the same cannot have been passed without holding any enquiry. For the said

purpose he relied on the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, 2001 (3) MPHT 397,

Rajendra Tiwari alias Raju Vs. State of M.P. & others, 2005 (3) MPHT 69 and Jitendra Vs. State of M.P. & others, 2008 (5) MPHT 146.

The respondents have filed their reply and in the reply, the respondents have stated that from beginning the work of the petitioner was not found

satisfactory. Therefore, on several occasions, show cause notices were issued to the petitioner but the petitioner was completely failed to submit

reply to the said show cause notice. She submitted the reply of only one show cause notice dated 13.01.2014. As the work of the petitioner was

not satisfactory, therefore, the respondents have left with no other option but to terminate the services of the petitioner. She further submits that the

services of the petitioner were purely on contract basis in fact as per the conditions mentioned in the appointment order, the respondents are not

required to assigned any reasons while passing the order of termination. However, in the present case a notice has been issued to the petitioner. In

such circumstances, she submits that the impugned orders calls for no interference.

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as in view of the above cited judgments, this Court is of the

view that the impugned termination orders being stigmatic in nature alleging misconduct involving moral turpitude, the same could not have been

passed without holding regular enquiry. The impugned termination orders would certainly create hurdle in her future employment. In the

circumstances, before passing such an stigmatic order, regular enquiry ought to have been conducted.

As a result, the impugned orders dated 30.05.2014 and 14.03.2014 are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to reinstate with

consequential benefits. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, if so

advised.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above.