ORDER :

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.02.2011 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner, who was appointed as Officer Marketing and Recovery (Rural), has been discharged from services, and the order dated 13.09.2011 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has also been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Officer Marketing and Recovery (Rural) in the State Bank of India, Bhopal vide order dated 15.11.2007 on contractual basis for a period of 2 years with a condition that if his services would be found satisfactory, the same would be renewed. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 issued a circular dated 20.07.2010 to the CGMs of Banks regarding supervision for permanent absorption of officers working on contract basis and post of OMR (Rural) was designated as Rural Marketing and Recovery Officer as well, but all of sudden vide order dated 19.02.2011 passed by the respondent No.3, the services of the petitioner were terminated, thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2, but the same also stood dismissed, against which the present petition has been filed.

3. The reliefs sought by the petitioner are as under:-

“10.1. It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to case of the petitioner for its kind perusal.

10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 19/2/2011 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 13/9/2011 (Annexure P/2) being illegal and inoperative in law.

10.3. This Hon’ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to absorb the petitioner on the post of OMR (Rural) now designated as RMRO on permanent basis in pursuance of circular dated 20/7/2010.

10.4. Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.”

4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities are not only bad, illegal and arbitrary but also contrary to the provisions of Rules, 20, 22 & 23 of the Conduct Rules, 2004 and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner while passing the impugned orders and the orders have been passing in complete violation of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was required to be absorbed in the services as per the circular dated 20.07.2010, but all of sudden he has been terminated on the ground that he committed irregularities in the fund, as a result of which crime was registered and after enquiry he was arrested, but no disciplinary action was initiated nor any show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner in this regard. Therefore, the petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside and the petitioner be directed to be absorbed in the service in light of the circular dated 20.07.2010. Learned counsel has placed his reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajasthan High Court vs Ved Priya and another, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 337, Sunil Kumar Verma vs The High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur and another rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.413/2006, order dated 02.05.2022, G. Yuvaraja vs State Bank of India and others rendered by the High Court of Madras in WP No.12160/2011, order dated 22.02.2017 and in the matter of Yogeshbhai Rupabhai Vatukiya vs State of Gujarat and others rendered by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.13245/2020, order dated 26.11.2020.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner wa