IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 623 of 2011 BALVEER SINGH TOMAR Versus STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri R.B.S. Tomar- Advocate for petitioner Shri Prabhat Pateria – Deputy Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER

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

“(i) That, the order Annexure-P/1 passed by the respondent No.3 may kindly be ordered to be quashed with a further direction that the petitioner be reinstated in service with all the consequential benefits and the petitioner be allowed to perform the work as Samvida Shalla Shikshak Varg-II.

(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be further directed to pay the difference of salary of the intervening period and also pay the difference of arrears along with interest at the rate of 15%.

(iii) That, any other relief, which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner may also be granted in the interest of justice.

(iv) That, the cost of this petition may also be awarded to the petitioner.”

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was initially appointed on 13.08.2009 as Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg-II. At the relevant point of time, regular Principal was not available and one Upper Division Teacher, namely, Mr. Virendra Singh Jadon was posted as officiating Principal (Incharge), discharging duties and disbursing power by performing his work as teaching. The petitioner was also authorized to perform the work to collect the salary charts and cheques with the Sankul Kendra. Thereafter, on 01.11.2010, respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice levelling allegations regarding illegal gratification with the teachers for completing the e-service book, preparation of identity cards or disclosure forms of the assets and by doing so sought explanation. Petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid notice and without considering the reply, impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 27.12.2010 has been issued by Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Sheopur (M.P.).

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order is stigmatic in nature which has been passed, without holding the regular departmental enquiry, on the basis of fact finding enquiry done by SDO(R), Sub- Division Vijaypur (M.P.) in which petitioner has been held guilty and the impugned stigmatic termination order has been issued by Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Sheopur (M.P.). It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the competent authority who has to take action against petitioner is General Administration Committee. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that by order dated 01.09.2016 passed in the case of B. Kanka Raju Vs. State of M.P. & Others in WP. No.89/2009 the co-ordinate Bench of this court has held that the General Administration Committee is only empowered to impose major penalty/termination of service of petitioner.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/State submits that services of petitioner have been terminated after taking into consideration the fact finding enquiry, supported the impugned order and opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner.

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

6. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any enquiry. Since impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 27.12.2010 is stigmatic in nature, therefore, regular departmental enquiry ought to have been held by respondents. The order passed by Co-ordinate Bench 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