The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to afford an opportunity of hearing before terminating the services of an employee, especially when the termination is stigmatic in nature, in order to comply with principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions.

ORDER : – In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the order dated 15-10-2014 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1985 as Copy/section Writer. Since the date of her initial appointment, petitioner is performing her duties with sincerity and utmost devotion. It is submitted that the appointment was made after following due procedure and as per norms of the State Government. Looking to the length of services, State Government had considered similarly situated employees for absorption in the regular cadre. As the case of the petitioner was not considered for absorption at par with similarly situated employees, petitioner had approached this Court by filing W. P. (S) No. 2604/2004, which was allowed with the direction to give appointment on regular basis on the post of LDC vide order dated 15-10-2004. However, the order was never complied with by the respondents. On 6-9-2014, to utter surprise of the petitioner, a news item was flashed in newspaper Patrika in relation to acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner for supplying copy of Khasra. Thereafter, on 18-9-2014, a news was again flashed wherein names of certain corrupt employees including the petitioner were mentioned, who were subjected to withholding of two increments. On the basis of aforesaid newspaper report, respondent No. 3 appointed an Inquiry Officer who conducted preliminary enquiry. It is submitted that the enquiry was conducted without any foundation, material or evidence on record and the Inquiry Officer held that petitioner had taken Rs. 200/- from respondent No. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid, the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that neither show-cause notice nor charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. No regular enquiry was conducted and only on the basis of ceremonial inquiry, the impugned order has been passed. Moreover, the order is stigmatic which has been passed without giving slightest opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner could not have been terminated without following principles of natural justice. The petitioner further contented that the impugned action on the part of the respondents is absolutely in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of this Court in the cases of Umesh Kumar Trivedi vs. State Committee, Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission, 2002(2) M.P.L.J. 391 and Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, 2001(3) MPHT 397.

4. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 it is submitted that petitioner is a temporary employee and no right had accrued to her. The enquiry was got concluded by the Collector, Gwalior from the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector has submitted his report. After receiving the enquiry report, impugned order has rightly been passed.

5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

6. On perusal of the record, it is seen that neither show cause notice nor charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner.

This Court in the case of Deepak Nagle vs. State of M. P. and others, reported in 2014(2) M.P.H.T. 531 in paragraphs 4 and 5 held as under : –

“4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that services of the petitioner, who was a contractual employee have been terminated by a non-speaking order without affording him proper opportunity of hearing. It was further submitted that the investigation was carried out behind the back of the petitioner. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated 20th November, 2012 passed in the case of Makhan Lal Ahirwar vs. State of M. P., W. P. No. 5098/2012. On the ot