Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
MANINDER S. BHATTI
Ved Prakash Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for non-compliance with procedures (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. counterarguments from the respondents (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court’s observations on maintainability and nature of employment (Para 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 5. ratio decidendi on stigmatic terminations (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 17) |
| 6. final conclusion and order (Para 18 , 19) |
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
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.
The court upheld the termination of a contractual employee as valid, emphasizing that rights are governed by the contract terms, and principles of natural justice do not apply in the same manner to c....
Termination orders with allegations of misconduct require a formal inquiry and adherence to natural justice, even for contractual employees.
Termination of a probationary employee for unsatisfactory performance is lawful and non-stigmatic, requiring no formal inquiry or prior warning.
The termination of services should be made by the appointing authority, and proper opportunity of hearing must be provided before making a decision with serious implications.
Due process is required even for contract employees facing stigmatic termination, emphasizing the necessity of an enquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
