Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kiran Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13827
1 WP. No. 10071 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 10071 of 2018
SMT. KIRAN SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Divakar Vyas - Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. Smarati Sharma - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
“7.1 That, the impugned orders dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure P-1),
12.10.2017 (Annexure P-2) and 29.09.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by
respondents No.2, 3 and 5 respectively may kindly be quashed.
7.2 That, any other relief(s) to which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
may also be directed to be extended in favour of the petitioner in the
interest of justice.
7.3 That, the cost of this petition be also awarded to the petitioner.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 5/4/2026
12:56:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13827
2 WP. No. 10071 of 2018
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed to the
post of Mini Aanganwadi Worker on 11.05.2012. Thereafter, petitioner has been
continuously working on the aforesaid post. A show-cause notice was issued to
petitioner and thereafter, petitioner submitted a reply to the said show-cause
notice. However, without considering the reply, without issuing the charge-sheet,
and without conducting a regular departmental inquiry, the services of petitioner
were terminated by a stigmatic order dated 29.09.2014. Thereafter, petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Collector, Sheopur, which was rejected by order
dated 12.10.2017. Subsequently, petitioner preferred a second appeal before the
Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, which was also rejected
by order dated 15.01.2018. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority
as well as the Appellate Authority did not consider the fact that the impugned
order dated 29.09.2014 is a stigmatic order, which cannot be passed without
issuing a charge-sheet and conducting a regular departmental inquiry.
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, while vehemently opposing the
submissions put forth by learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that as per
Condition No.5 of the appointment order, the services of petitioner may be
terminated even without giving any notice.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record.
5. The impugned order dated 29.9.2014 (Annexure P/3) is a stigmatic order,
which is reproduced below:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 5/4/2026
12:56:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13827
3 WP. No. 10071 of 2018
^^ftyk dk;Zde vf/kdkjh ,dh–r cky fodkl lsok ‘;ksiqj ds i= Øekad 1582
fnukad 26-07-2014 ds ikyu esa le;≤ ij rkRdkfyd ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh
‘;ksiqj ‘kgjh ,oa i;Zos{kd }kjk feuh vkaxuokM+h dsUæ okMZ&11 Mh [kjsjk cLrh
dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;k FkkA fujh{k.k ds nkSjku ikbZ xbZ vfu;ferrkvksa ,oa
vkaxuokMh dk;ZdrkZ ds vuqifLFkr ik;s tkus dsUæ ij lka>k pqYgk
;kstukUrxZr çnk; [kk|kUu ,oa Vsd gkse jk’ku dk forj.k ugha
gksus ,oa vfHkys[kksa dk la/kkj.k O;ofLFkr :i ls u gksus o dk;ZdrkZ
dk;Z ds çfr fu;fer :i ls ykijokgh cjrus ds dkj.k ,oa ckj&ckj
psrkouh nsus ds mijkar Hkh vius dk;Z esa dksbZ lq/kkj ugha fd;s tkus ,oa
fn;s x;s dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= dk çfrmÙkj larks”ktud çkIr u gksus ds
dkj.k ,oa lh-,e- gsYiykbZu o tulquokbZ esa çkIr f’kdk;r ds fujkdj.k gsrq
i;Zos{kd }kjk dh xbZ tk¡p fnukad 23-09-2014 dks dsUæ fcuk lwpuk ds can
ik;s tkus o fgrxzkfg;ksa }kjk [kk|kUu dk ykHk ugha feyus dk iapukek
çLrqr djus ds dkj.k o dsUæ ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k Jherh
fdj.k ‘kekZ] mi vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ vkaxuokMh dsaUæ [kjsjk cLrh okMZ 11&Mh
dh lsok;sa rRdky çHkko ls lekIr dh tkrh gSA Jherh fdj.k ‘kekZ viuk çHkkj
rRdky Jherh la;ksfxrk xqIrk vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ dsUæ okMZ 11&ch dks
rRdky lkSisaAmDr vkns’k rRdky izHkko’khy jgsxkA
¼ftyk dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh }kjk vuqeksfnr½^^”
6. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
enquiry. Since impugned order Annexure P-3 dated 29.9.2014 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 5/4/2026
12:56:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13827
4 WP. No. 10071 of 2018
& 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.
7. 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 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;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 5/4/2026
12:56:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13827
5 WP. No. 10071 of 2018
(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.”
8. 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 proper 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.
9. 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: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 5/4/2026
12:56:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13827
6 WP. No. 10071 of 2018
10. 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 (para-
5 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 5/4/2026
12:56:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13827
7 WP. No. 10071 of 2018
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.”
11. 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 5/4/2026
12:56:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13827
8 WP. No. 10071 of 2018
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
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(Annexure-
P/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.
12. The policy of the State Government dated 10.07.2007 provides for removal
of Aanganwadi Worker from services and the same clearly reflects that Project
Officer/other higher officer of department of Women & Child Development
cannot discontinue without holding an enquiry, relevant extract of which is
reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-
n& vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk ds in ls gVkus dh izfØ;k &
¼1½ ;fn vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk }kjk vkaxuokM+h dsUnz dk lapkyu
fu;ekuqlkj ugha fd;k tkrk gS vFkok muds }kjk vius dRkZO;ksa ,oa nkf;Roksa ds fuogZu
esa ykijokgh dh tkrh gS rks ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh@efgyk ,oa cky fodkl ds vU; mPp
vf/kdkjh }kjk vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks lquokbZ dk volj nsrs gq, tkap esa
nks”kh ik;s tkus ij in ls i`Fkd fd;k tk ldsxkAAdmittedly, no regular departmental enquiry has been conducted and
stigmatic termination order has been passed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 5/4/2026
12:56:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13827
9 WP. No. 10071 of 2018
13. 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.
14. It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an authority
to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised with due
diligence, and in reasonable and rational manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the necessity and importance of
giving reasons by the authority in support of its decision. It has been held that the
face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even by an administrative
authority affecting the rights of parties must speak. The affected party must know
how his case or defence was considered before passing the prejudicial order.
15. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab
v/s. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 is relevant to
quote. In the said decision it had been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and
self-sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on
the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion.
16. In the same judgment in paragraph 7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarifies
that the Government does not have carte blanche to take any decision it chooses
to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must
be informed and impregnated with reasons. Paragraph 7 of the said decision is
quoted as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 5/4/2026
12:56:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13827
10 WP. No. 10071 of
2018“7. The same principle was upheld more recently in Ram Kishun v. State
of U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382. However, we must
hasten to clarify that the Government does not have a carte blanche to take
any decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or
prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with
reasons.
This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of this
Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd
(1993) 1 SCC 445, Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Air
India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617, B.S.N.
Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548 and
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517″ 31.
17. Also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti
Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in
(2010) 9 SCC 496 highlights this point. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph
15 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial authority or even an
administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be
like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. In paragraph 47 the Honb’le Supreme Court
summarized its discussion. The relevant subparagraphs of the said summary are
quoted as under:-
15. “47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle
of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done
as well.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 5/4/2026
12:56:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13827
11 WP. No. 10071 of
2018
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible
arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative
power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-
maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a
decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by
judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and
constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on
relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making
justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as
the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one
common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant
factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining
the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about
his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the
person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A
pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a
valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint
on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only
makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes
them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of
Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad
doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 5/4/2026
12:56:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13827
12 WP. No. 10071 of
2018
virtually a component of human rights andwas considered part of
Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553]
EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ
405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European
Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent
reasons must be given for judicial decisions”.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting
up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law,
requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is
virtually a part of “due process”.”
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Oryx Fisheries Pvt.Ltd vs Union
Of India & Ors; (2010) 13 SCC 427 has held as under:-
“41. In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after considering various
judgments formulated certain principles in para 51 of the judgment which
are set out below
a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle
of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done
as well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible
arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative
power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision
maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a
decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by
judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 5/4/2026
12:56:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13827
13 WP. No. 10071 of
2018g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.
h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and
constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on
relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making
justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as
the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one
common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant
factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining
the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and
transparency.
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about
his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the
person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A
pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a
valid decision making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on
abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes
the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them
subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad
doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now
virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of
Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and
Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court
referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which
requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicialSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 5/4/2026
12:56:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1382714 WP. No. 10071 of
2018decisions”. o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role
in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law,
requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is
virtually a part of “Due Process”.
42. In the instant case the appellate order contains reasons. However,
absence of reasons in the original order cannot be compensated by
disclosure of reason in the appellate order.
43. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna and others,
(1986) 4 SCC 537, it has been held:
“……after the blow suffered by the initial decision, it is difficult to
contemplate complete restitution through an appellate decision. Such a
case is unlike an action for money or recovery of property, where the
execution of the trial decree may be stayed pending appeal, or a successful
appeal may result in refund of the money or restitution of the property,
with appropriate compensation by way of interest or mesne profits for the
period of deprivation. And, therefore, it seems to us, there is manifest need
to ensure that there is no breach of fundamental procedure in the original
proceeding, and to avoid treating an appeal as an overall substitute for the
original proceeding.”
44. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court quashes the show cause notice as
also the order dated 19.03.2008 passed by the third respondent. In view of
that, the appellate order has no legs to stand and accordingly is quashed.”
19. 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.), this petition is allowed and disposed of in the following
terms:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 5/4/2026
12:56:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13827
15 WP. No. 10071 of
2018
(i) impugned orders dated 15.1.2018 and 12.10.2017
passed by the respondents No.2 and 3 are hereby set
aside;
(ii) respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner
along with all consequential benefits except back wages
on the principal of “no work no pay.”
(iii) respondents shall comply the aforesaid direction
within a period the three months from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order.
(iv) respondent/State would be at liberty to proceed
against petitioner in accordance with law, in case if need
so arises in future.”
20. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Ahmad
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 5/4/2026
12:56:40 PM
[ad_1]
Source link
