Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Dangi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2026
1 W.P. No.5095 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 8th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 5095 of 2017
VIRENDRA DANGI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Ashwini Johri - Advocate
for petitioner.
Ms. Smrati Sharma - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
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;
(ii) That, the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 29.7.2017 passed by
the respondent may kindly be directed to be set aside and the services
of the petitioner may kindly be restored with all consequential benefits
including salary and other emoluments etc.
(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon’ble
Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be
also awarded in favour of the petitioner”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
2 W.P. No.5095 of 2017
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was
holding the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Pachavali, Tahsil
Kolaras, District Shivpuri. The petitioner was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak
in May, 2013. Appointment order of the petitioner was renewed from time to
time. During service tenure, a false complaint was lodged by the beneficiary in a
Camp at Pachavali that brother of the petitioner has received amount and on that
basis, show cause notice dated 18.07.2017 was issued. Petitioner has submitted
detailed reply and specifically stated that the amount was already paid to the
respondent through online transfer of money and it is absolutely wrong to say
that the petitioner and his brother asked the money in question from the
concerning complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter without
considering the reply of the petitioner, non-speaking, unreasoned and stigmatic
termination order dated 29.07.2017 has been issued by the CEO, Janpad
Panchayat, Kolaras, District Shivpuri. It is further submitted that impugned order
is stigmatic order and cannot be passed without initiating the regular
departmental inquiry.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer made by
learned counsel for petitioner and supported the impugned order. It is submitted
that petitioner has submitted the present writ petition without exhausting and
availing the alternative, efficacious remedy to file statutory appeal before the
Commissioner, and submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has already
considered the reply to the show cause notice and after considering the reply,
impugned order has rightly been passed by the respondent and further submitted
that services of the petitioner are purely on contract basis and thus governs by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
3 W.P. No.5095 of 2017
contract as stipulated and as per the terms/clause 16 and 17 answering respondent
has jurisdiction to pass an order of termination of Gram Rojgar Sahayak.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The impugned order dated 29.07.2017 (Annexure P/1) is a stigmatic order,
relevant extract of which, is reproduced below for ready reference and
convenience:-
**श व र म क गई श कयत क आधर पर श रन श ह दग] गम
रजगर हयक] गम पचयत पच ल] जनपद पचयत कलर क
कयल # यन पत कमक@पच-& क&मप@६२४ ददनक १८-०७-२०१७ क करण
बतओनद3 जर4 दकय गय ।
श रन श ह द6ग] गम रजगर हयक] गम पचयत पच ल]
जनपद पचयत] कलर क ददनक २४-०७-२०१७ क जर4 नद3 क जब
पसत9त दकय गय। पसत9त जब तषजनक नह4 पय जन तथ पद4य
दशयत = कतव# य= क शन ह# न म लपर ह4] स च@चररत अन9 नह4नत
बरत जन क दष मनत ह9य मधयपद रजय रजगर गर34 पररषद भपल
क जपन कमक@३७२९@एनआरईजए&एमप@सथ-@एनआर&२@१७
भपल] ददनक ०३-०६-२०१७ जर4 शनदJ न9 र श रन श ह द6ग] गम
रजगर हयक] गम पचयत पच ल] जनपद पचयत कलर क व द
मप क जत ह&।
यह आद ततकल पभ ल हग ।
7. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
enquiry. Since impugned order 29.07.2017 (Annexure 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
4 W.P. No.5095 of 2017
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 has 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;
(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 tentativelySignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
5 W.P. No.5095 of 2017proposes 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 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.”
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 toSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
6 W.P. No.5095 of 2017Recruitment 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.
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: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
7 W.P. No.5095 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.Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
8 W.P. No.5095 of 2017and 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.
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 ijA
2- 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 ijA
3- 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 ijASignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
9 W.P. No.5095 of 20176- 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 ijA
8- 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: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
10 W.P. No.5095 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. 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.
16. 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
11 W.P. No.5095 of 2017
17. 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:-
“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.
18. 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 sub-paragraphs of the
said summary are quoted as under:-
“47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
12 W.P. No.5095 of 2017
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a
decisionmaking process as observing principles of natural justice by
judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(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.
(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
Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR
553, 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”.
19. 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
13 W.P. No.5095 of 2017
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 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
14 W.P. No.5095 of 2017
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 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”.
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 orSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
15 W.P. No.5095 of 2017restitution 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.”
20. A show-cause notice was issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Panchayat. In respect to the show-cause notice, petitioner submitted his reply but
without considering the reply of petitioner and without conducting a regular
departmental inquiry, the concerned authorities terminated the petitioner from
services by the impugned non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 29.07.2017
which is stigmatic in nature.
21. 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.), the impugned order dated 29.07.2017 (Annexure P/1) is
hereby set aside.
22. Consequently, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner
forthwith with all consequential benefits except back wages on the principles of
“no work no pay”. However, liberty is granted to the respondent to take a fresh
action in accordance with law, if so advised.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
16 W.P. No.5095 of 2017
23. With the aforesaid, observation, the petition is disposed of.
24. All interlocutory applications, if pending, are disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Abhi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/15/2026
11:34:32 AM
