Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Archana Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10928
1 WP. No. 6460 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 1st OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6460 of 2017
SMT. ARCHANA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Anil Kumar Shrivastav - Advocate for respondent No.5.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
“(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly
be allowed;
7(i-A) That, the order dated 3.5.2019 (Annexure P-6) may kindly
be quashed.
(ii) That, the impugned order dated 8.9.2017 Annexure P/1 may
kindly be directed to be set aside.
(iii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service on the post of Aaganwadi Worker with all
consequential benefits.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/7/2026
11:49:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10928
2 WP. No. 6460 of 2017
(iii) That, any other just suitable and proper relief, which this
Hon’ble Court deem fit, may also kindly be granted to the
petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner. ”
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was holding the
post of Aanganwadi Worker at Aanganwadi Centre Pritampur, I.C.D.S. Guna
(Rural), District Guna. Petitioner was initially appointed as an Aanganwadi
Worker in the year 1996. It is further submitted that on the basis of false
allegations made against petitioner, a show-cause notice dated 24.08.2017
was issued; however, the same was communicated to the petitioner on
05.09.2017. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a reply to the said show-cause
notice denying the allegations levelled against her. It is further submitted that
being dissatisfied, the respondents again issued a notice dated 31.08.2017
granting only three days’ time to submit a reply. Petitioner submitted her
reply dated 04.09.2017 stating therein that her aunt (a close relative) had
expired on 30.08.2017 and she had gone to her house on 31.08.2017. It is
contended that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered by
the respondents and a non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 08.09.2017
has been passed, which is stigmatic in nature.
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. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that after participating
in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement, respondent No. 5 was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/7/2026
11:49:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10928
3 WP. No. 6460 of 2017
duly appointed by the respondents. It is submitted that there is no fault on the
part of respondent No. 5. It is further submitted that respondent No. 5 has
been working since 2019. Learned counsel supports the impugned order,
opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for
dismissal of instant petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. The impugned order dated 8.9.2017 (Annexure P/1) is a stigmatic
order, which is reproduced below:-
**Jhefr vpZuk ‘kekZ vkaxuokMh dk;ZdrkZ vkaxuokMh dsUnz izhreiqj xzke
iapk;r ixkjk dks dk;kZy; i= dzekad 956 fnukad 18@11@2016 }kjk
eq[;ky; ij fuokl gsrq dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA
ftldk mRrj izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k uk gh izhreiqj esa eq[;ky; cuk;k
x;k A iqu% i= fnukad 791 fnukad 24@08@2017 }kjk eq[;ky; ij
fuokl djus gsrq funsZf’kr fd;k gS fdUrq mldk ikyu ugh fd;k
x;k fnukad 31@08@2017 dks v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk Hkh vkaxuokMh
dsUnz izhreiqj dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;kA dsUnz can ik;k x;kA rFkk
xzkeokfl;ksa us iapukek fn;k fd dsUnz lapkyu fu;fer ,ao
fof/kor ugh gks jgk gSA rFkk vkaxuokMh dh lsokvks dk ykHk
fgrxkzgh;ksa dks ugh fey ik jgk gSA bl laca/k esa Jhefr ‘kekZ dks
dk;kZy; i= dzekad 847 fnukad 31@08@2017 dks dkj.k crkvks
lwpuk i= fn;k x;k ftldk mRrj larks”kizn ugh gS i;Zos{kd }kjk Hkh
vius izfrosnu esa voxr djk;k fd vkidks le; le; ij le>kbZ’k
nh xbZ fdUrq vkids dk;Z ,oa O;ogkj esa lq/kkj ugh gqvkASignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/7/2026
11:49:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:109284 WP. No. 6460 of 2017
vkids }kjk eq[;ky; ij fuokl u djus rFkk vius inh;
drZO;ks dk fuokZgu u djus ,oa vkidk dk;Z ,oa O;ogkj Bhd u
gksus dkj.k xzke ds fgrxzkgh;ks dks vkaxuokMh dh lsokvks dk
fu;fer ykHk u feyus ds dkj.k Jhefr vpZuk ‘kekZ vkaxuokMh
dk;ZdrkZ dh rRdky izHkko ls lsok,sa lekIr dh tkrh gSA**
7. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
enquiry. Since impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 8.9.2017 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/7/2026
11:49:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10928
5 WP. No. 6460 of 2017
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;
(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 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/7/2026
11:49:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10928
6 WP. No. 6460 of 2017
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.”
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 KrishnaSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/7/2026
11:49:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:109287 WP. No. 6460 of 2017
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.
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.”
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,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/7/2026
11:49:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:109288 WP. No. 6460 of 2017
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 several other writ petitions on the subject are under
consideration before this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/7/2026
11:49:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10928
9 WP. No. 6460 of 2017
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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Bibhudatta Mohanty v. Union of
India and Others (2002) 4 SCC 16 has held as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/7/2026
11:49:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10928
10 WP. No. 6460 of 2017
15. Without properly examining the contents of
the counter-affidavit the High Court sustained the
order of the Tribunal. In the light of the above
discussion, we are of the view that the selection of
the appellant was wrongly set aside. Insofar as the
selection of Respondent 5 is concerned, that is a
consequential action and it cannot stand as the
impugned orders of setting aside the selection and
the appointment of the appellant are held to be bad.
Therefore, the selection of Respondent 5
automatically falls to the ground. The impugned
orders of the High Court maintaining the order of the
Tribunal are set aside. The appellant shall be
reinstated into service within one month from today
with continuity of service. However, he will not be
entitled to any pay for the period he remained out of
service. The appeals are accordingly allowed. No
costs.
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.), this petition is disposed of in
the following terms:-
(i) the impugned termination order dated 8.9.2017 (Annexure
P/1) is hereby set aside;
(ii) the respondents shall reinstate the petitioner forthwith and
give all consequential benefits, except back wages on the
principle of “no work no pay’;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/7/2026
11:49:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10928
11 WP. No. 6460 of 2017
(iii) the appointment of respondent No.5 is set aside in the light of
the judgment passed by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of
Bibhudatta Mohanty (supra);
(iv) the respondents are also directed to consider the case of
respondent No.5 and give her appointment in neighboring
Aaganwadi Center, if possible; and
(v) respondent/State would be at liberty to proceed against
petitioner in accordance with law, in case if need so arises.
17. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Ahmad
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/7/2026
11:49:28 AM