ORDER

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of termination of his services dated 6.6.2017 (Annexure-P-6) passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Betul and the order dated 20.6.2018 (Annexure-P-9) whereby, the Registrar General of the High Court of M.P., has rejected his departmental appeal.

2. The relevant facts briefly are ;

(i) The petitioner was initially appointed vide order dated 29.12.2016 as daily wager on contract basis to discharge the work of Chowkidar/Waterman/Mali by the District & Sessions Judge, Betul for a period of 89 days purely on temporary basis against the Contingency Establishment, however, vide order dated 23.3.2017, the period of his services was extended.

(ii) Vide show cause notice dated 15.5.2017, he was called-upon by the District & Sessions Judge Betul, to show-cause as to why his services should not be terminated on account of his unauthorized absence between the period 25.4.2017 to 12.5.2017, which was stated to have constitute a clear act of misconduct.

(iii) Despite service of the notice and in absence of any reply, looking to his misconduct of unauthorized absence, vide order dated 6.6.2017 (Annexure-P-6), the District & Sessions Judge, Betul terminated the services of the petitioner.

(iv) The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal dated 4.1.2018 but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 20.6.2018 (Annexure-P-9).

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on account of sudden death of his grand-mother, he had to proceed on leave. During the said period, his father also fell badly ill and he had to escort him to Nagpur for medical treatment. His father had undergone heart surgery and during the said period, petitioner had to remain with him at Hospital at Nagpur. When condition of his father improved, the petitioner went to the Office where he was informed that his services were terminated. He did not receive any show-cause notice and he being poor person was ignorant of the rules and, taking into consideration severe hardship which he had undergone, the punishment of termination of his services is disproportionate. The petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the case of Rahul Tripathi v. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal 2001 (3) MPLJ 616., Krishna Pal v. District & Sessions Judge, Morena, W.P.17745/2016 order dated 21.2.2017.] Ramcharan v. State of M.P. and others W.P. 16572/2014 order dated 2.8.2017., and Malkhan Singh Malviya v. State of M.P.W.A. 1166/2017 judgment dt. 8.3.2018. and submits that on the basis of aforesaid legal pronouncement when stigmatic order is passed against an employee, the same requires conducting of a departmental enquiry and without departmental enquiry, such an order casting stigma, is against the principle of natural justice.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the show-cause notice was duly served upon the petitioner and he chose not to file the reply. Taking into consideration the nature of services of the petitioner which are purely temporary and contractual in nature, no departmental enquiry is necessary to be conducted. The misconduct of absence from duty is undisputed and, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order violates the principle of natural justice. In such a case, compliance of the principle of natural justice is “useless formality”. He also submits that the High Court has limited scope of judicial review in the matter of departmental actions and hence, no leniency can be shown to the petitioner and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980) 4 SCC 379., Karnataka State SRTC v. S.G. Kutturappa and another (2005) 5 SCC 409., Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54. , Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and another (2000) 5 SCC 65. , APSTRC v. S. Jayaram (2004) 13 SC