Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 566 (MP)

Ankit Panchal v. State of M. P.

2019-08-05

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2019
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, challenging the order dated 5.10.2018 as well as the appellate order dated 26.2.2019. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed vide order dated 1.7.2015 on the post of Block Co-ordinator. By order dated 11.8.2017 he was transferred to Panchayat and Rural Development Department at Development Block Joura, District Morena, M.P. under the Pradhan Mandri Aawas Yojana (Gramin) Scheme. That, while he was posted at Jhabua an order was passed on 5.10.2018 by the Chief Executive Officer terminating the contractual services of the petitioner on account of negligence towards the services of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 26.2.2019 has dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the impugned order of termination is stigmatic in nature and therefore, the same could not have been passed by the respondents without holding any enquiry. He further relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ramcharan v. State of M.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No. 16572/2014 and other connected writ petitions decided on 2.8.2017. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State submits that, due to the irregularities committed by the petitioner, his services have been terminated. He also submits that, the petitioner is a contractual employee and therefore, no regular departmental enquiry is required to be initiated against him. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 6. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Block Co-ordinator on contract basis. His services were terminated vide order dated 5.10.2018. From perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that, the same cast stigmatic on the petitioner. This Court in the case of Ramcharan supra has held that, even the services of the contractual employee cannot be terminated without following due procedure of law. In the present case, it appears that no notice or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of termination. 7. In the light of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5.10.2018 as well as the appellate order dated 26.2.2019 are hereby set aside. In the present case, it appears that no notice or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of termination. 7. In the light of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5.10.2018 as well as the appellate order dated 26.2.2019 are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner along with back wages. However, the respondents shall free to pass a fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs.