Termination orders that are stigmatic, casting aspersions on an employee's conduct or character, constitute punishment and require a regular departmental inquiry and adherence to the principles of natural justice, regardless of whether the employment is contractual or temporary.

ORDER :

ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, J.

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

“1. That, the order dated 31.12.2014 passed by respondent No.4 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be quashed and petitioner be permitted to continue on the post in question.

2. That, cost of the petition may kindly be granted.

3. That, order dt. 31.1.2015 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be quashed.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of Cashier on 26.10.2006. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred to Datia. It is further submitted that petitioner has performed his duties sincerely and honestly and they were extended time to time. It is further submitted that respondent No. 4, who was personally biased against the petitioner, issued a show-cause notice dated 15.12.2014 with an ulterior and oblique motive, as his illegal demands were not satisfied by the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner submitted the reply and denied all the allegations mentioned in the show-cause notice. Without considering the reply submitted by petitioner and without conducting a regular departmental inquiry, the concerned authority passed the order dated 31.12.2014, which is non-speaking and unreasoned.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 31.12.2014 is stigmatic in nature and that has been passed without considering the reply of petitioner, however, the stigmatic order cannot be issued without holding a regular departmental enquiry. Learned counsel for petitioner raised other grounds also.

3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, while vehemently opposing the submissions put forth by learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that as per condition mentioned in appointment order, the services of petitioner who has been appointed on contractual basis for a particular period may be terminated even before expiry of contractual period and even without giving any notice.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The impugned order dated 31.12.2014 (Annexure P/1) is a stigmatic order, relevant extract of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-

6. Before issuing impugned order dated 31.12.2014 Annexure P-1, the respondent has neither consider the reply to show-cause notice to petitioner nor regular department enquiry has been conducted and by stigmatic order services of petitioner have been terminated.

7. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any enquiry. Since impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 31.12.2014 is stigmatic in nature, therefore, regular departmental enquiry ought to have been held by respondents. The judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.23267/2019 (Omprakash Gurjar vs. Panchayat and Rural Development & Ors.), also the order dated 12.09.2023 passed in WP No.19117/2022 (Hukumchand Solanki vs. Panchayat and Rural Development & Ors.) and the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in WP No.14663/2022 (Arvind Malviya vs. State of MP & Ors.) are worth mentioning.

8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal & Others reported in 2001(3) MPLJ 616 and Jitendra Vs. State of M.P. & Others reported in 2008(4) MPLJ 670 has rightly held that the order of termination is stigmatic in nature as the same entails serious consequences on future prospects of respondent and therefore, the same ought to have been passed after holding an inquiry. This Court is further supported in its view by the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Malkhan Singh Malviya Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR(2018) MP 660. The Apex Court while deciding the case of Khem Chand vs. The Union of India and Ors. reported in 1958 SC 300, had an occasion to summarize the concept of reasonable opportunity, relevant para of which reads as under:-

"(19) To summarize: the reasonable opportunity envisaged by the