Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Laxmi Bhadouriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11788
1 WP-6566-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 9 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6566 of 2017
SMT. LAXMI BHADOURIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narottam Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. Monika Mishra, Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking the following relief(s):
“(i) The order annexure P/1 passed by the
respondent No.2 may be quashed and the
petitioner be held entitled to all the
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 submitted that notice has been
issued on 27.09.2017 and on the last date of hearing i.e. 13.01.2026, as a last
indulgence, four weeks time was granted to the respondents to file reply. Till,
yet reply has not been filed by respondents. He further submits that services
of petitioner has been terminated by non-speaking and stigmatic termination
order and submitted that stigmatic termination order cannot be issued without
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/10/2026
6:53:24 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11788
2 WP-6566-2017
conducting regular departmental enquiry. It is further submitted that
petitioner was appointed on the post of Aanganwadi Worker on 31.08.1998
and continuously performed his duties with with utmost dedication and
completed near about 19 years before passing the impugned order in service.
It is submitted that respondent no.2 did not issue any notice to the petitioner
and thereafter straightway issued termination order in violation of principles
of natural justice.
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer made
by learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order and
submits that against the order dated 13.06.2017, the petitioner is having the
alternate remedy to approach before Commissioner by filing the revision and
sector supervisor submitted the report against the so many Aganwadi worker,
those Aganwadi worker did not reside in the village of Aganwadi center and
this report has been forwarded to the Project Officer and the villagers have
also made complaint against the petitioner. As per report petitioner was
absent from the Aganwadi Center. Supervisor also issued notice to the
petitioner but no reply filed by the petitioner before the Supervisor or
answering respondent. It is further submitted that earlier also show cause
notice has already been issued and despite aforesaid, petitioner was absent on
09.05.2017. Due to the absence of the petitioner, Aaganwadi Center Khaderi
was closed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The policy dated 10.07.2007 issued by the State Government,
provides for procedure for removal of Aanganwadi Worker from services,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/10/2026
6:53:24 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11788
3 WP-6566-2017
the relevant of which is reproduced below for ready reference and
convenience:-
“द: आंगनवाड कायकता/सहाियका को पद से हटाने क कयाः-
(1) य द आंगनवाड कायकता / सहाियका ारा आंगनवाड के का संचालन
िनयमानुसार नह कया जाता है अथवा उनके ारा अपने कत य एवं दािय व के
िनवहन म लापरवाह क जाती है तो प रयोजना अिधकार /म हला एवं बाल वकास के
अ य उ च अिधकार ारा आंगनवाड कायकता / सहाियका को सुनवाई का अवसर
दे ते हुए जॉच म दोषी पाये जाने पर पद से पृथक कया जा सकेगा।
(2) य द सहयोिगनी मातृ सिमित कसी कायकता / सहाियका के काय से संतु नह है
तो पृथक सहयोिगनी मातृ सिमित इस आशय का ताव उपयु कारण दशाते हुए
बैठक म तुत करे गी एवं बैठक म ताव बहुमत से पा रत होने पर पयवे क को
े षत करे गी। पयवे क वयं संबिधत सिमित ारा ा ताव के प रपे य म हटाने
के कारण के त य क जांच करे गी। उसके प ात ् अपना जांच ितवेदन 15 दवस म
प अनुशंसा स हत बाल वकास प रयोजन अिधकार को भेजना होगा ।
प रयोजना अिधकार ारा पयवे क के जांच ितवेदन का पर ण करने एवं
उपयु कारण पाये जाने पर सात दवस म आंगनवाड कायकता / सहाियका क सेवा
समाि का िनणय लेकर सेवा समाि का आदे श जार कया जावेगा। आंगनवाड
कायकता / सहाियका को पद से पृथक करने के पूव सुनवाई का अवसर दया जाना
अिनवाय होगा।
य द सहयोिगनी मातृ सिमित व पयवे क के मत म िभ नता हो तो बाल वकास
प रयोजना अिधकार ारा जांच उपरांत िनणय िलया जाकर जला काय म
अिधकार / जला म हला बाल वकास अिधकार के अनुमोदन प ात ् पद से पृथक
कया जा सकेगा।
3. य द पयवे क क जानकार म कायकता / सहाियका के व कोई गंभीर िशकायत
सीधे आती है तो वह इन िशकायत पर जांच उपरांत अपना जांच ितवेदन 15 दवस म
प अनुशंसा स हत बाल वकास प रयोजना अिधकार को भेजना होगा। प रयोजना
अिधकार ारा पयवे क के जांच ितवेदन का पर ण करने एवं उपयु कारण पाये
जाने पर सात दवस म आंगनवाड कायकता / सहाियका क सेवा समाि का िनणय
लेकर सेवा समाि के आदे श जार कया जावेगा। आंगनवाड कायकता/सहाियका का
पद से पृथक करने के पूव सुनवाई का अवसर दया जाना अिनवाय होगा।”
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the impugned order has been
passed by the respondents without giving any opportunity of hearing and
without issuing any show-cause notice to petitioner. A specific procedure has
been prescribed in the policy dated 10.07.2007 and the respondents have notfollowed the said prescribed procedure while removing petitioner from
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/10/2026
6:53:24 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11788
4 WP-6566-2017
service.
7. Before issuing impugned order dated 13.06.2017 Annexure P-1,
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.
8. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
enquiry. Since impugned order 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.
9. 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 1958 SC 300 , had
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/10/2026
6:53:24 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11788
5 WP-6566-2017
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;
(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.”
10. The impugned order dated 13.06.2017 (Annexure P/1) is a
stigmatic order, which is reproduced below for ready reference and
convenience:-
“एतद ज रये सूिचत
कया जाता है क माननीय यायालय
ख डपीठ वािलयर के करण कंमाक ड लू.पी.968/2017 म पा रत
आदे श के पालन मे आपके ारा तुत र जटे शन एने जर कंमाक 06
दनांक 04.01.2017 जो आपके ारा जला पंचायत अ य , जला
पंचायत िभ ड को तुत क गयी थी, उ प के अवलोकन करने एवं
कायालयीन रकाड के आधार पर आपको आंगनबाड के खडे र मे
संचािलत कये जाने हे तु कायालयीन आदे श कंमाक 300 दनांक
24.04.2017 को जार कया गया है जसक ित आपके ारा दनांक
09.05.2017 को कायालय मे वयं उप थत होकर ा क गयी है । परं तु
खडे र मे के संचािलत कये जाने संबिधंत सूचना आपके ारा कायालय
मे तुत नह क गयी है । और न ह 01 माह से के से अनुप थत
रहने संबंिधत कोई सूचना आपके ारा कायालय म द गयी। दनांक
29.05.2017 को से टर पयवे क ारा कये गये के िनर ण उपरांत
द गयी जांच रपोट मे पाया क आपके ारा ाम खडे र मे केSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/10/2026
6:53:24 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:117886 WP-6566-2017
संचािलत नह कया जा रहा है जसके कारण ाम खडे र के हत ाह
आई.सी.ड .एस. क सेवा से वंिचत हो रहे है । उ कृ य अ यंत ह गंभीर
कृ ित का होने से आपको सुनवाई का अंितम अवसर दे ते हुये
कायालयीन प कमाक 477 दनांक 30.05.2017 जार कर 03 दवस मे
जबाव चाहा गया, परं तु उ प का जबाव भी आपके ारा कायालय मे
आज दनांक तक तुत नह कया गया इससे प हो रहा है क आप
ाम खडे र मे आंगनबाड कायकता पद क सेवाये दे ना नह चाहती है ।
जबाव समय पर ा न होने, के से अकारण अनुप थत रहने के
कारण म. .शासन म हला एवं बाल वकास वभाग के आंगनबाड
कायकता/सहाियकाओ के चयन एव िनयु संबंिधत िनदश कंमाक /
ऍफ 3-2/06/50-2 भोपाल दनांक 10.07.2007 के अनुसार आपको
आंगनबाड के खडे र के आंगनबाड कायकता के पद से पृथक कया
जाता है ।
आदे श त काल भाव से भावशील होगा। ”
11. 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 departmental enquiry. From the language of impugned order, it is
clear that it is a stigmatic termination order.
12. 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 mutandisSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/10/2026
6:53:24 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:117887 WP-6566-2017
to the present case.”
13. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/10/2026
6:53:24 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:117888 WP-6566-2017
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.”
14. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/10/2026
6:53:24 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11788
9 WP-6566-2017
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(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.”
15. 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. सं वदा सेवा समाि – ाम रोजगार सहायक क सं वदा सेवा अविध पूण
होने के पूव िन न वशेष थितय म ाम पंचायत ारा समा क जा
सकगी-
1. सेवा अविध के दौरान य गत एवं नामजद आपरािधक करण के संबंध
म थम सूचना रपोट (FIR) / Charge होने पर अथवा 48 घ टे से अिधक
िन रहने पर।
2. अिधकृ त िश ण म अनुप थत होने अथवा िश ण को पया कारण
बगैर म य अविध म छोडने पर अथवा िश ण म अ य गंभीर लापरवाह
करने पर।
3. बगैर सूचना के एक माह से अिधक मु यालय म अनुप थत होने पर।
4. वयं का यागप दे ने पर।
5. संबंिधत के पागल / दवािलया घो षत होने पर।
6. अिनयिमत व ु टपूण िनयु मा णत होने पर।
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/10/2026
6:53:24 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11788
10 WP-6566-2017
7. मु य कायपालन अिधकार जला पंचायत ारा पा रत आदे श के अनु म
म अिनयिमता एवं कत य िनवहन म घोर लापरवाह मा णत होने पर।
8. ाम पंचायत का अ त व समा होने पर।”
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.”
16. 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.
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 theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/10/2026
6:53:24 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1178811 WP-6566-2017
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.”
17. 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.
18. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 13.06.2017
(Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate
the petitioner and further directed to give all consequential benefits except
backwages on the principle of no work no pay. However, respondents would
be at liberty to proceed against petitioner in accordance with law, in case if
need so arises in future.
19. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.
20. Any interlocutory application, if pending, is also disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
“R”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/10/2026
6:53:24 PM