Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : V. K Jain, Abhishek Tugnawat
For the Respondent : Aditya Garg, Romesh Dave

ORDER : – In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5-3-2020, by which the contractual services of the petitioner have been put to an end on account of violation of clause 11.2 of the Human Resources Manual (in short H. R. Manual). The said order is challenged mainly on the ground that the action of the respondent No. 2 is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 24-12-2005. In the year 2014, the petitioner was assigned the work of District Community Mobilizer at Khargone. The petitioner was caught red-handed in the office premises. The Lokayukt Department has issued a letter to the respondent to transfer the petitioner to some other place. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Umaria by the respondents. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice. The petitioner had given reply to the said show cause notice. By the impugned order dated 5-3-2018, the services of the petitioner has been terminated in view of clause 11.2 of the H.R. Manual.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid order is stigmatic in nature and therefore, the order of termination could not have been passed without holding any inquiry in the matter. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been discriminated as the employees facing the cases by Lokayukt have only been transferred and they have not been terminated by the respondent No. 2. Thus, the order is discriminatory in nature.

4. It is further submitted that vide Annexure P/9, the stand of the department was that the petitioner was not involved in the commission of the offence.

5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the order dated 2-8-2017 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Ramcharan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. passed in W. P. No. 16572/2014 and other judgments. He has also placed reliance on the order dated 8-3-2018 passed by the Division bench in W. A. No. 1166/2017 Malkhan Singh Malviya vs. State of M. P. , and order dated 15-11-2021 passed in R. P. No. 493/2020, Panchayat and Rural Development Department vs. Nigar Sultan Khan .

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 supported the impugned order and also raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the present petition. It is submitted that the principal of natural justice has been followed. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter the impugned order has been passed in light of the Clause 11.2 of the H.R. Manual.

7. No other points have been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 raised the preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioner was a contractual employee and therefore, the present petition was not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and ors. vs. S. N. Goyal , reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92. He referred para No. 7 of the said judgment which reads as under : –

“7. The appellant, in its appeal, contended that the trial Court, having found that the enquiry was fair and proper and the finding of guilt was justified, ought not to have set aside the order imposing penalty. The two appeals were heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Jind by a common judgment dated 20-7-2002. The first Appel