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. 641 of 2015

VEERESH KUMAR TYAGI

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Pratip Visoriya - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Rajendra Jain – Government Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER

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:-

**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 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 & Other