ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by (i)the order date.09.02.2022 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Collector and the District Programme Officer, Madhya Pradesh Rashtriya Rozgar Guarantee Yojna, District Vidisha, whereby the petitioner has been terminated from the service of Gram Rozgar Sahayak (Contractual) and (ii) order dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure P/7) passed by (3) the Commissioner Bhopal Division, Bhopal, whereby the appeal has been dismissed, (iii) the order dated 10.01.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Rozgar Guarantee Parishad, Bhopal, whereby the second appeal has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are as under:-

(i)The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak under the Madhya Pradesh State Rozgar Guarantee Scheme. Thereafter, he was declared as Assistant Panchayat Secretary. During the service as Gram Rozgar Sahayk, he was served with a show cause notice dated 24.12.2021 by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Vidisha. Along with the show cause notice, a detailed report was furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply explaining each and every allegation which were not found satisfactory. Hence, vide order dated 09.02.2022 (Annexure P/6), he has been terminated from service under Clause 15.2 of Circular dated 02.06.2012 (Annexure P/8).

Since there is a provision of two appeals, therefore, the (4) petitioner preferred the appeals and both the appellate authorities have considered all the allegations with the reply mainly withdrawal of the amount of wages of Rs.44,000/-

under the MGNRGA scheme and did not utilize for the work.

The allegation about emblazonment of the amount by sanctioning a Well in the house of his father has been found proven. Apart from this, another allegation in respect of the withdrawal of Rs.1.60 lac for the development of a garden in the campus of Hanuman Mandir has been found proved, therefore, vide order dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure P/7) and 10.01.2024 (Annexure P/1) both the appeals have been dismissed by the first and second appellate authority. Hence this petition before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice was issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Vidisha, but the termination order has been passed by the Collector, District Vidisha without conducting a detailed enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner, therefore, termination is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel submits that in similar facts and (5) circumstances, this Court has set aside such types of orders of termination in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has annexed all the orders passed by the different courts collectively as Annexure P/10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The Madhya Pradesh State Employment Guarantee Council issued directions for the appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak in which clause 4 deals with the essential qualifications, clause 8 deals with the selection process and clause 15 is about the disciplinary and control by the Gram Panchayat and administrative control by Program Officer Janpad Panchayat. Clause 15.2 gives authority to the Collector to terminate the services of Gram Rozgar Sahayak on the basis of sufficient reasons. Clause 16 also provides for the termination of contractual appointment on eight conditions. There is a provision of two appeals by virtue of the circular dated 5.6.2018 (Annexure P/9), which the petitioner has already availed.

5. So far as the contention of the petitioner