IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

th

ON THE 6 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 1549 of 2016

AKAL SINGH

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Pratip Visoriya - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Rajendra Jain – Government Advocate for respondents/State.

Shri Shashank Indapurkar – counsel for respondent No.6.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed

seeking the following relief (s):

“1. That, the order dated 7.8.2015 passed by Respondent No.2 (Annexure P/1) & order dated 31.12.2014 passed by Respondent No.5 (Annexure P/5) may kindly be quashed and petitioner be permitted to

continue on the post.

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

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that initially petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer on 6.11.2006 by the order of Collector- cum-District Program Co-ordinator, Chhatarpur. 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 petitioner issued a show-cause notice dated 15.12.2014 with an ulterior and oblique motive as his illegal demands were not satisfied by petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner submitted the reply and denied all the allegations mentioned in the show-cause notice and specifically contended that the amounts were withdrawn by Sarpanch and Secretary and petitioner had only verified the work. It is further submitted that so far as Lanju Aadiwasi's case is concerned he himself had filed affidavit before competent authority and Sarpanch who was removed on the basis of same allegations has already got interim relief. It is further submitted that 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, thereby discontinuing the services of petitioner by not extending his contractual services.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order Annexure P-2 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. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that detailed fact finding enquiry has been conducted in respect of the complaint of negligence committed by Secretary as well as Sarpanch towards his official duties and the fact finding enquiry report was submitted before Chief Executive Officer and on the basis of fact finding enquiry respondent has passed the impugned order.

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

5. The impugned order dated 31.12.2014 (Annexure P/2) is a stigmatic order, relevant extract of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-

**vkids dk;ZO;‍ ogkj ds laca/k esa fujUr‍ j f'kdk;rsa çkIr‍ gksus ds dkj.k] vkidh lafonk vof/k o"kZ 2014&15 ds uohuhdj.k ds lEc ‍ a/k esa *vuohuhdj.k ¼uohuhdj.k u dju½s ** dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA ‍

lafonk 'krZ ds vuqlkj fnukad 23@12@2014 dks vkidks O;fäxr lquokbZ dk volj ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍

çnku fd;k x;k FkkA O;fäxr lquokbZ ds nkSjku çLrqr çfrosnu esa mYysf[kr rF; lek/kkudkjd u gksus ds dkj.k lafonk 'krZsa@vuqca/k ds vk/kkj ij vkidks lafonk lekfIr gsrq 1 ekg dk vfxze uksfVl çnk; fd;k tkrk gSA**

6. Before issuing impugn