The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity to the employee to defend the charges of misconduct before casting stigma on the employee in cases of termination.

SHEEL NAGU, J.

1. The instant intra court appeal filed under Section 2(i) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (hereinafter referred as “2005 Act”) assails the final order dated 26.09.2017 passed in WP.1029 /2009 whereby the learned single judge while exercising the writ jurisdiction u/ Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/appellant seeking quashment of order dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure P-6) by which his contractual services as a Peon, under the Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, continuing since 1997, have been terminated.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

3. The writ Court while dismissing the petition in question found that a show cause notice dated 13.01.2009 (Annexure P-4) was issued asking the petitioner to respond to the allegation of misconduct alleged therein or else the service would stand terminated. Learned single Judge further found that FIR was also registered alleging offences punishable u/Ss. 406, 409, 420 of IPC on 12.01.2009 arising out of same incident which gave rise to the said alleged misconduct. The writ court after considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that the petitioner had been acquitted subsequently of the criminal charge, upheld the termination by recording the finding that the termination was not solely based on the factum of registration of offence but the misconduct alleged in the show cause notice rendered the petitioner (a mere contractual employee) unsuitable for the job and therefore, petitioner had no right to continue for having lost the trust of the employer.

4. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 04.10.1997 vide Annexure P-1 on temporary basis under the Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission. Service of the petitioner were continued uninterruptedly for the next more than 11 years when he received show cause notice Annexure P-4 dated 13.01.2009 asking him to show cause in regard to the misconduct informed therein failing which the services would stand terminated. Petitioner filed his reply to the same vide Annexure P-5 denying the charges. The reply was found to be unsatisfactory leading to issuance of impugned order dated 27.01.2009 (Annexure P/6) on the ground of the said misconduct mentioned therein which primarily related to misappropriation of certain books on 01.01.2009 and 09.01.2009, based upon the preliminary enquiry conducted by District Project Coordinator, District Education Centre, Vidisha. The impugned order further referred to the criminal prosecution lodged against the petitioner by FIR dated 12.01.2009 u/Ss. 406, 409 and 420 IPC arising out of the same incident which gave rise to the said misconduct.

5. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed WP No. 1029/2009(s) which was responded to by primarily urging that the petitioner was purely a temporary employee engaged on contractual basis who had indulged in misconduct of serious nature in regard to which offence was also registered and therefore, by following the due process of law including affording of opportunity by way of show cause notice as aforesaid and considering his response, his services were terminated, which cannot be termed as unlawful.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal and Ors. reported in ILR 2001 SC 1144 to contend that in circumstances similar to the one attending the instant case, this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi, who was also a contractual employee working under the same Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, had set aside the termination by finding the same to be stigmatic and yet not preceded by any inquiry in accordance with law except a show cause notice. It is submitted that the Single bench in the said case of Rahul Tripathi placed reliance on the decisions of Apex Court in the case of Shamsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in A