ORDER

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 1.9.2014 whereby the petitioner was terminated from service by giving him one month notice as per condition No.1 of appointment order dated 31.8.2009.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts for adjudication of this matter was that the petitioner while working as daily rated employee was considered for regularization and regularized by order dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure P/4). Certain conditions were mentioned in the said order. Thereafter, petitioner was required to fill-up a verification form and petitioner filled it up on 25.1.2013. The case of the petitioner is that he furnished all necessary information in the said form. The respondents sent a notice to the petitioner on 2.12.2013 (Annexure P/6). In turn, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 20.12.2013 (Annexure P/7). The respondents without conducting any enquiry, passed the impugned order dated 1.9.2014 and terminated the services of the petitioner.

3. Shri K. N. Pethia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s claim for regularization was duly considered by a Screening Committee and he was regularized by a specific order dated 31.8.2009. There was no element of misrepresentation or suppression on the part of the petitioner in the verification form dated 25.1.2013. The petitioner not only disclosed the factum of criminal cases, enclosed the relevant judgments along with the form which is evident from entry No.12 of the said verification form. Interestingly, submits Shri Pethia, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the show cause notice, there was no allegation that petitioner suppressed any material fact while filling the verification form. Apart from this, the show cause notice shows that the petitioner stood exonerated/acquitted in all the criminal cases except one. The petitioner filed his reply on 20.12.2013 (Annexure P/7) and made it clear that neither on the basis of alleged conviction nor on the basis of any misconduct, any coercive action can be taken against the petitioner. Shri Pethia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order dated 1.9.2014 is stigmatic in nature.

4. To elaborate, it is argued that a careful reading of the impugned order shows that the respondents mentioned about the criminal cases and thereafter relied upon the alleged misconduct of the petitioner founded upon Regulation 50(1), (10), (13), (15) and (67) of the State Mandi Board Services (Regulations), 1998 (hereinafter referred as ‘Regulations’). It is further argued that the termination of probationer by casting stigma amounts to a punitive termination which could not have been done without following the ‘due process’. Shri Pethia in support of aforesaid contention placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No.594 of 2020, State of M.P. and others v. Yogesh Choudhary . In addition, he placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment reported in (2008) 2 SCC 273, State of M.P. and others v. Hazarilal. It is urged that the impugned order may be set aside and petitioner who remained out of employment for no fault on his part be reinstated with all consequential benefits.

5. Sounding a contra note, Shri Samresh Katare, learned counsel for employer supported the impugned order. He submits that while regularizing the petitioner vide order dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure P/4), it was made clear that he will remain on probation for a period of two years. If for the purpose of appointment, petitioner furnished any incorrect information or suppressed any material information, his services could be terminated. Thus, impugned order of termination is passed on the basis of those conditions of regularization order dated 31.8.2009 read with show cause notice dated 2.12.2013 and the relevant Regulations.

6. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

7. I have heard the parties at length and perused the re