The court ruled that a contracted employee's termination for misconduct does not require a departmental inquiry under civil service rules if reasonable opportunity is provided, affirming the validity of the termination process based on established misconduct.

ORDER :

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J.

The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by respondent no.4, by which the petitioner's service as Gram Rojgar Sahayak has been terminated and the order dated 31.01.2023 dismissing the first appeal by respondent no.3 and also order dated 16.04.2024 whereby the second appeal has been dismissed by the respondent no.2.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak on 07.03.2013 on contract basis. A complaint was made in which it was stated that the petitioner was demanding money for releasing the installments of Pradhan Mantri Avas Yojna and the audio CD purported to be a conversation between the petitioner and villagers was also filed alongwith the complaint. The respondent no.5 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner alleging that he demanded money for releasing the installments of money from the beneficiaries and the petitioner was asked to submit the reply. A copy of the show cause notice dated 22.09.2022 has been placed on record as Annexure P/7. In pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner submitted a reply before the respondent no.5 denying the aforesaid allegations. Alongwith his reply, he filed statement of the villagers Bahadur, Kehring and Basantibai stating that there was no such demand.

3. The respondent no.5 after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the allegations in the complaint and audio CD, found that the petitioner in inebriate condition was abusing the beneficiaries and was demanding money and terminated the services of the petitioner as per clause 15 of the the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employement Guarantee Act ( MGNREGA ) Scheme, which was also one of the conditions of the appointment order.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred first appeal before the Commissioner, Ujjain Division Ujjain. The Appellate Authority also considered the matter in detail and held that the complaint was proved from the record and the audio CD. The petitioner in inebriate condition was abusing the beneficiaries and was demanding money for disbursement of the installments. The said order was passed after considering the complaint, reply, audio CD and after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, another appeal was preferred before the respondent no.2, which has also been dismissed by a speaking and reasoned order.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per the condition no.15 of the instruction/policy of appointments of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and also the condition no.15 of the appointment, the services of the Gram Rojgar Sahayak can only be terminated after holding an inquiry as provided under Rule 14 of MP Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred as "Rules, 66).

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/state supported the impugned order and submitted that the order of termination of the petitioner has been passed after giving reasonable opportunity to defend as show cause notice was issued and the petitioner filed reply and adduced evidence and thereafter before terminating the services another show cause notice was issued and the petitioner appeared in person and submitted his case. The services of the petitioner have been terminated as per clause 15 of the instruction Annexure P/14 and also as per the condition no.15 of the appoin