IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI WRIT PETITION No. 4142 of 2025 SATYANARAYAN BAJAJ Versus THE STATE OF M. P. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vikas Jaiswal - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Shreyraj Saxena - Deputy Advocate General for the respondents State.

Shri Vikas Sisodiya - Advocate on behalf of Shri Ahinandan Panday -

Advocate for the respondent No.3.

Shri Shashank Sharma - Advocate on behalf of the respondent No.4.

Reserved on :- 13.11.2025 Posted on :- 02.12.2025 .............................................................................................................................................................

ORDER The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 28/05/2024 passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby his services have been terminated on account of his conviction in Special Case No. 04/2023.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed on

25/10/1987 on the post of Nakedaar/Assistant Sub-Inspector. Considering his unblemished service record, the respondents promoted him to the post of Mandi Inspector vide order dated 21/01/2014 and posted him at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Unhel, District Ujjain.

3. That, during his posting at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ujjain, an allegation was made that the petitioner had accepted monetary benefit from a vendor. Consequently, vide order dated 16/08/2023, the petitioner was transferred to the Madhya Pradesh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Zonal Office, Indore. Thereafter, vide order dated 12/04/2023, he was placed under suspension with headquarters initially at Jabalpur, which was later modified to Bhopal.

4. That, The Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta, registered Crime No. 124/2021 for the alleged act of corruption. The case culminated in the judgment dated 28/03/2024 passed in Special Case No. 04/2023, by which the petitioner was convicted for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. Aggrieved by the conviction, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 4240/2024. Vide order dated 29/08/2024, this Court was pleased to suspend the substantive jail sentence imposed upon him.After suspension of sentence, the petitioner approached the office of the respondents. Only then he came to know that his services had already been terminated vide order dated 28/05/2024, without issuing any show-cause notice, without conducting any departmental enquiry, and without granting any opportunity of hearing.

6. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the action of the respondents mainly on the grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice, non-consideration of relevant statutory provisions, and illegality in invoking the power of termination solely based on the conviction.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated

28/05/2024 is vitiated as it was passed without issuing any show-cause notice, without conducting any departmental enquiry, and without providing any opportunity of hearing. Hence, the order is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

8. The petitioner further contends that the termination order was passed when he was in judicial custody and was communicated to him after more than three months, that too after suspension of sentence by this Court on 29/08/2024. It is also urged that once the sentence has been suspended, the petitioner ought to have been permitted to resume duties, particularly when no departmental enquiry was initiated.

9. The petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in Balram Ruhela v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 8171/2023), wherein the Court held that even in cases of conviction, the disciplinary authority must consider the circumstances of the case and provide an opportunity of hearing before imposing the penalty of dismissal. Further it was contended that Rule 32(1) of the State