Back
2026 Supreme(MP) 356
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
Anand Singh Bahrawat, J.
Manoj Singh Raghuwanshi – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12292 of 2025
Decided On : 17-06-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Termination of Service
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.147, S.148, S.149, S.302
Headnote
(B) Administrative Law - Quasi-judicial and administrative orders - Disclosure of reasons - Decisions affecting rights of parties must speak and contain reasons to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability - Absence of reasons in original order cannot be compensated by subsequent disclosure in appellate order - Principle reaffirmed that reason is the soul of justice. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Additional Government Pleader, was terminated via an unreasoned order dated 13.03.2025 following allegations of negligence in conducting a trial by failing to include eyewitnesses in the list of witnesses. The State failed to issue a charge-sheet or conduct a regular departmental inquiry, relying instead on a fact-finding report conducted without affording due process.
Findings of Court:
The court found the impugned order to be stigmatic, non-speaking, and passed in violation of principles of natural justice and due process.
Issues: Whether the termination of the petitioner's services, which was stigmatic and passed without a regular departmental inquiry or proper reasoning, is legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: An order of termination that casts a stigma on the conduct, character, or work of an employee, being foundational on acts of commission or omission amounting to misconduct, requires compliance with the principles of natural justice, including an opportunity of hearing and a regular departmental inquiry.
Result: Petition allowed; impugned termination order set aside with liberty to the State to proceed in accordance with law.
For the Petitioner:Shri Soumya Pawaiya, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Monika Mishra, Government Advocate
ORDER
Anand Singh Bahrawat, J.
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):
“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by Respondent No. 1.
b) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as an Additional Government Pleader and Additional Government Advocate in the District Court, Shivpuri, vide order dated 17.06.2021. He was conducting prosecution on behalf of the State in Sessions Trial No. 75/2022 arising out of Crime No. 204/2021 registered at Police Station Indar, District Shivpuri, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the IPC. It is submitted that inadvertently, the name of an eyewitness, namely Shivendra Raghuvanshi, could not be included in the list of witnesses. Vide order dated 27.09.2022, learned Trial Court directed the State Counsel to verify why Rakesh Kevat, an eyewitness, was not being summoned. Upon realizing the omission, the matter was again taken up on 28.09.2022 and the Court was informed that the case was fixed before the Trial Court on 13.10.2022, on which date the names of the aforesaid eyewitnesses would be included in the list of witnesses. It is further submitted that after the examination of the aforesaid eyewitnesses, the Court dismissed the bail application vide order dated 14.11.2022 directing the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, to examine the conduct of petitioner and ascertain whether the withholding of the eyewitnesses was a deliberate act intended to provide an opportunity to the accused to influence the witnesses or merely an act of negligence. It is further submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, a show-cause notice was issued to petitioner, to which he submitted a detailed reply. Thereafter, an inquiry report was prepared by the Secretary, Law Department, on 27.12.2022. It is further submitted that the fact- finding inquiry report was prepared without affording the petitioner any proper opportunity of hearing and on the basis of the said report, another show-cause notice was issued to him. Petitioner submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice and specifically stated that corrective steps had been taken immediately and the omitted witnesses were subsequently examined. The omission occurred purely due to inadvertence and was a case of mere oversight. It is further submitted that after a lapse of more than three years and without issuing any further notice or affording any opportunity of hearing, the services of petitioner have been terminated by a stigmatic, non-speaking and unreasoned order. No regular departmental inquiry was conducted by the respondents prior to passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that a stigmatic order of termination can be passed only after conducting a regular departmental inquiry. In the present case, the termination order has been passed solely on the basis of a fact-finding inquiry, in which the petitioner was neither afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing nor given any opportunity to cross- examine witnesses. Therefore, the services of petitioner could not have been terminated by way of a stigmatic order on the basis of such a fact-finding inquiry report.
3. Per contra, learned learned counsel for respondent/State support the impugned order and submitted that after considering the inquiry and reply, the impugned order has rightly been passed by the respondent.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner was appointed as an Additional Government Pleader and Additional Government Advocate in the District Court, Shivpuri, vide order dated 17.06.2021. Petitioner was conducting prosecu
