Termination orders that are stigmatic require adherence to principles of natural justice, including an opportunity for the employee to be heard before any punitive action is taken.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed while praying for following reliefs:

"(i) To issue a writ of certiorari for setting aside impugned order dated 24/06/2025 (Annexure P/12) and hold it as illegal and arbitrary.

(ii) To grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of petitioner.

(iii) To award the cost of petition."

2. The facts as detailed in the memorandum of petition reveal that the present petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Faculty pursuant to an advertisement dated 20/01/1992 (Annexure P/1). The order of appointment of the petitioner was issued on 23/04/1992 (Annexure P/2). The petitioner performed his services with utmost dedication and to the satisfaction of all concerned. The Center for Entrepreneurship Development Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'CEDMAP') is an autonomous body registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1973. The CEDMAP has its own rules and regulations and as per the regulations, which are named and styled as Centre for Entrepreneurship Development Madhya Pradesh (CEDMP) Staff Regulations, 1991, there exists provisions for constitution of a governing body and in Rule 6 and 8, office bearers of the governing body are mentioned. In Rule 9, there are provisions for appointment of Executive Directors. In the case in hand, the petitioner herein who was to be superannuated on 31/12/2023, by a resolution, passed by the governing body of CEDMAP on 29/08/2023 (Annexure P/8), was conferred with the benefit of extension of services for a period of 2 years commencing from 01/01/2024 till 31/12/2025. As per the decision so taken by the governing body, the petitioner started performing his duties. In the meantime, as the then Executive Director Mrs. Anuradha Singhai was placed under suspension, hence, vide order dated 04/09/2024 Shri Ambresh Adhikari, Joint Director of Directorate of Industries was assigned duties of officiating Director of CEDMAP. The officiating Director now vide order impugned dated 24/06/2025 (Annexure P/12) has terminated the services of the petitioner while giving one month notice w.e.f. 24/07/2025. Assailing the impugned order, this petition has been filed.

3. Senior Counsel contends that the order impugned is non est and untenable in the eye of law having been passed in flagrant violation of the principles of service jurisprudence. It is the contention of the Senior Counsel that the impugned order on the face of it, is stigmatic and could not have been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without conducting a full fledged inquiry. It is contended by the Senior Counsel that it is not a case of termination simpliciter, on the contrary, the respondent ventured upon to terminate the services while levelling serious allegations of irregularities. The order impugned reflects that there are allegations of negligence, indiscipline and irresponsible attitude of the present petitioner. The aforesaid allegations clearly reveal that the same cast stigma and in such circumstances, it was sine qua non for the respondents to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

4. In support of her contention, Senior Counsel has placed reliance on decisions of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Brijesh Kumar and Anr. Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 10546/2019 and Swati Priyadarshini Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 2024 SCC Online 2139. It is conte