Bhupendra Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2026
inkinccorporation@gmail.com Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupendra Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7179
1 WP. No. 19511 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 19511 of 2017
BHUPENDRA SINGH GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar - Advocate for petitioner.
Smt. Smrati Sharma - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Pratip Visoriya- Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
“1. That, the impugned order dated 10-08-2017 annexure P/1 and
order dated 17-10-2017 annexure P/2 may kindly be quashed, with a
further direction to respondent No.2 not to disturb the petitioner from
Gram Panchayat Kunarpura, Janpad Panchayat Pahadgarh, District –
Morena.
2. That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.”
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was holding the post
of Gram Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Kunarpura, Janpad Panchayat
Pahadgarh, District Morena (M.P.). It is submitted that at the relevant point of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/28/2026
10:52:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7179
2 WP. No. 19511 of 2017
time, petitioner was posted as Gram Rozgar Sahayak in aforesaid Gram
Panchayat and was discharging his duty sincerely and honestly. Respondent No.-
3 gave him the additional charge of Gram Panchayat Tiktoli as in-charge
supervisor on 27-03-2017. It is submitted that on the basis of false allegation
made against petitioner, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Morena issued
a notice dated 21-07-2017. In the aforesaid notice the allegations were imposed
against petitioner that the toilets are not constructed and the amount of toilets has
been paid to beneficiaries. Petitioner filed reply to the said show-cause notice and
stated that Chandrapal Singh Kushwah Gram Rojgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat
Tiktoli is responsible for the construction of Toilets and after that co-ordinator of
Janpad Panchayat verified the fact regarding construction of Toilets and it was
the duty of gram rojgar sahayak to upload the photograph of the constructed
Toilets and to send on the login I.D. of co-ordinator. Thus, there is no fault on the
part of petitioner regarding payment of Toilets to the beneficiaries. Inspite of that
petitioner recovered the amount from concerned beneficiaries and deposited the
same in the account of Janpad Panchayat Morena. Thereafter, Chief Executive
Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pahadgarh, District Morena who approved the amount
but no action was taken against him. It is submitted that no regular departmental
enquiry has been conducted. Only on the basis of fact finding/preliminary/ex
parte enquiry in which petitioner was neither heard nor was given opportunity of
hearing nor was issued a show cause notice to produce his defence and by
recording statements of witnesses, ex parte, without giving any opportunity of
cross-examination in that enquiry, the services of petitioner have been terminated
by non-speaking, unreasoned and stigmatic order dated 10.08.2017. Thereafter,
petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority, however, Appellate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/28/2026
10:52:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7179
3 WP. No. 19511 of 2017
Authority did not consider the aforesaid aspect and rejected the appeal so
preferred by petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned
order dated 10.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) has been issued by the Chief Executive
Officer Janpad Panchayat Pahadgarh as per the directions received from Chief
Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Morena. It is further submitted that as per the
judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Joint Action
Committee of AIR Line Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) And Others Vs.
Director General of Civil Aviation And Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435
if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on suggestion of a
person who had no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal. It is
submitted that the competent authority has not applied its mind and only on the
basis of recommendation/direction issued by Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Panchayat, Morena passed the impugned order which is contrary to the settled
position or contrary to the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Joint Action Committee of AIR Line Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI)
And Others (supra).
3. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent/State and
respondent No.3 that in pursuance of the policy issued by the State Government,
as per Clause-17, petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing
Second Appeal before the Appellate Authority which has not been availed and
exhausted by petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner was employed on
contractual basis and therefore before terminating his services a preliminary
enquiry was conducted by the respondents and thus, the alleged impugned order
dated 10.08.2017 is correct and as per law. It is further submitted that in the
enquiry along with petitioner one Chandrapal Singh Kushwah Gram Rojgar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/28/2026
10:52:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7179
4 WP. No. 19511 of 2017
Sahayak, Shekhar Sharma – Block Co-ordinator were also found to be involved
in the misappropriation of public funds. Further, it is also submitted that FIR
(Annexure R-2) bearing Crime No. 17/2017 before Police Station – Nirar, District
Morena was also registered. Learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on
order dated 03.09.2025 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Gwalior in
WP.No.30659/2024 [Rajbeer Singh Gurjar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
And Others] and on order dated 19.09.2025 passed by co-ordinate Bench of
this Court at Principal Seat Jabalpur in WP.No.21686/2023 [Manish Kumar
Tiwari Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh And Others] submitting that no
relief can be granted to petitioner and prayed for dismissal of instant petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From perusal of record, it is gathered that petitioner was holding the post
of Gram Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Kunarpura, Janpad Panchayat
Pahadgarh, District Morena (M.P.). At the relevant point of time, petitioner was
posted as Gram Rozgar Sahayak in aforesaid Gram Panchayat and was
discharging his duty sincerely and honesty. Respondent No-3 gave him the
additional charge of Gram panchayat Tiktoli as in-charge supervisor on 27-03-
2017. On the basis of allegation made against petitioner, Chief Executive Officer,
Zila Panchayat Morena issued a notice dated 21-07-2017. In the aforesaid notice
the allegations were imposed against petitioner that the toilets are not constructed
and the amount of toilets has been paid to beneficiaries. Petitioner filed reply to
the said show-cause notice and stated that Chandrapal Singh Kushwah Gram
Rojgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat Tiktoli is responsible for the construction of
Toilets and after that coordinator of Janpad Panchayat verified the fact regarding
construction of Toilets and it was the duty of gram rojgar sahayak to upload the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/28/2026
10:52:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7179
5 WP. No. 19511 of 2017
photograph of the constructed Toilets and to send on the login I.D. of
coordinator. Thus, there is no fault on the part of the petitioner regarding
payment of Toilets to the beneficiaries. Inspite of that petitioner recovered the
amount from concerned beneficiaries and deposited the same in the account of
Janpad Panchayat Morena. Thereafter, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad
Panchayat Pahadgarh, District Morena who had approved the amount but no
action was taken against him. No regular departmental enquiry has been
conducted. Only on the basis of fact finding/preliminary/ex parte enquiry in
which the petitioner was neither heard nor was given opportunity of hearing nor
was issued a show cause notice to produce his defence and by recording
statements of witnesses ex parte without giving any opportunity of cross-
examination in that enquiry the services of petitioner have been terminated by
non-speaking, unreasoned and stigmatic order dated 10.08.2017. Thereafter,
petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority, however, Appellate
Authority did not consider the aforesaid aspect and rejected the appeal so
preferred by petitioner. Furthermore, impugned order dated 10.08.2017
(Annexure P-1) has been issued by the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat
Pahadgarh as per the directions received from Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Panchayat Morena. As per the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Joint Action Committee of AIR Line Pilots’ Association of India
(ALPAI) And Others (supra) if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at
the behest or on suggestion of a person who had no statutory role to play, the
same would be patently illegal. The competent authority has not applied its mind
and only on the basis of recommendation/direction issued by Chief Executive
Officer, Zila Panchayat, Morena passed the impugned order which is contrary to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/28/2026
10:52:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7179
6 WP. No. 19511 of 2017
the settled position or contrary to the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Joint Action Committee of AIR Line Pilots’ Association of India
(ALPAI) And Others (supra). So far as the order passed in Manish Kumar
Tiwari (supra) is concerned, the co-ordinate Bench has already held that
opportunity of hearing is required to be given to an employee once he has visited
with a stigmatic order and in the present case stigmatic termination order has
been issued. The order cited by learned counsel for the State is not applicable in
the present case. So far as order passed in Rajbeer Singh Gurjar (supra) is
concerned, if only one conclusion is possible then compliance with principles of
natural justice would not vitiate the action of the authority and in the present case
the stigmatic termination order has been issued without conducting regular
departmental enquiry, therefore, only one conclusion is not possible, therefore,
the aforesaid order is not applicable in the present case.
6. The impugned order dated 10.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) is a stigmatic order,
relevant extract of which is reproduced below for ready reference and
convenience:
**Jh HkwisUæ flag xqtZj xzke jkstxkj lgk;d xzke iapk;r dqavjiqj ,oa ¼çHkkjh
lqijokbtj xzke iapk;r fVdVksyh nwenkj½ }kjk ‘kkspky; fuekZ.k esa foÙkh;
vfu;ferrk djus ls eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh ftyk iapk;r eqjSuk }kjk dkj.k
crkvks lwpuk i= Ø- 12314 fnukad 21-07-2017 tkjh fd;k x;k Jh HkwisUæ flag
xqtZj }kjk çLrqr mÙkj larks”k tud ,oa lek/kkudkjd ugha gksus ls eq[;
dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh ftyk iapk;r ds i= Øekad 13877 fnukad 10-08-2017 ls
foÙkh; vfu;ferrk dk nks”kh ekudj in ls izFkd djus ds funsZ”k ds Øe
esa e-ç- jkstxkj xkjaVh ifj”kn ds ifji= Øekad 3729&3730 fnukad 03-06-2017
ds rgr Jh HkwisUæ flag xqtZj xzke jkstxkj lgk;d xzke iapk;r dqavjiqj ,oa
¼çHkkjh lqijokbtj xzke iapk;r fVdVksyh nwenkj½ dh lafonk lsok lekIr dh
tkrh gSA mä vkns”k rRdky çHkko”khy gksxkA**
7. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
regular departmental enquiry. Since impugned order dated 10.08.2017 (Annexure
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/28/2026
10:52:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7179
7 WP. No. 19511 of 2017
P-1) 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 AIR 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: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/28/2026
10:52:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7179
8 WP. No. 19511 of 2017
(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 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: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/28/2026
10:52:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7179
9 WP. No. 19511 of 2017
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 (para5 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.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/28/2026
10:52:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7179
10 WP. No. 19511 of 2017
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 severalSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/28/2026
10:52:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:717911 WP. No. 19511 of 2017
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(AnnexureP/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 ijA2- 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 ijA3- 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/28/2026
10:52:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:717912 WP. No. 19511 of 2017
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 ijA8- 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:
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/28/2026
10:52:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7179
13 WP. No. 19511 of 2017
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. Without conducting a regular departmental inquiry, the concerned
authority terminated the petitioner from services by the impugned order dated
10.08.2017 which is stigmatic in nature.
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.), instant petition stands disposed of in the following
manner:
(i) Impugned order dated 10.08.2017 (Annexure P/1) and appeal
rejection order dated 17.10.2017 (Annexure P-2) are hereby set
aside; and
(ii) As the interim order dated 27.11.2017 is already in favour of
petitioner, therefore, there is no need to reinstate the petitioner inSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/28/2026
10:52:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:717914 WP. No. 19511 of 2017
service, however, he be extended all consequential benefits to which
he is entitled to, however, respondents are extended liberty to take
appropriate action in accordance with law, if so advised.
17. All interlocutory applications, if pending, are disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/28/2026
10:52:12 AM
