IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI WRIT PETITION No.34443 of 2025 PRAMOD PAWAR Versus COLLECTOR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Aviral Vikas Khare and Shri Sachin Patel- Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Pradyumna Kibe – GA for the respondents/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 32744 of 2025 VIPIN KUMAR SINGH Versus COLLECTOR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Aviral Vikas Khare and Shri Sachin Patel - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Pradyumna Kibe –GA for the respondents/State.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 08/01/2025 Post on : 20/01/2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

O R D E R

The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions under Article

226 of the Constitution of India challenging the termination orders dated 08/08/2025 (Annexure-P/1 in both the writ petitions) passed by the Respondent No. 1, which are founded solely on a common inquiry report dated 28/07/2025 (Annexure-P/17 in W.P. No. 34443/2025 and Annexure-P/12 in W.P. No. 32744/2025).

2. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the same set of facts, involveing identical grounds of challenge, and the impugned actions are based upon the same inquiry report, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that both the matters be heard analogously and decided by a common order. Accordingly, with the consent of parties, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed under the District e-Governance Society after undergoing due selection process conducted by the Madhya Pradesh State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. (MPSEDC). Their services were renewed periodically on account of satisfactory performance.

4. During their tenure, complaints were received alleging irregularities in relation to operation and allotment of Aadhaar centers within the district. Acting upon such complaints, an inquiry was directed to be conducted by certain district-level officers.

5. The inquiry culminated in a report dated 28/07/2025, holding the allegations as substantiated. Relying solely on the said inquiry report, the respondents proceeded to terminate the services of both the petitioners by passing separate but identically founded termination orders.

6. The petitioners submit that the inquiry conducted was not a regular departmental inquiry but only a preliminary fact-finding exercise. No charge-sheet was issued, no witnesses were examined in their presence, and no opportunity of cross-examination was provided. It is further pleaded that the complaints were motivated, made by ex- Aadhaar Operators who were earlier subjected to punitive action, and in one instance, the complaint was found to be in the name of a fictitious person. These facts were specifically pleaded in the rejoinder along with supporting documents. It is contended that since the termination orders dated 08.08.2025 are stigmatic in nature, they could not have been passed without holding a full-fledged inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

7. Per contra, the respondents have defended the impugned action by contending that the petitioners were contractual employees, that the Collector was the competent authority to terminate their services, and that sufficient opportunity was provided during the inquiry. It is further contended that considering the gravity of allegations concerning Aadhaar related activities, the termination orders do not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

8. Heard both parties at length and examined the entire record available.

9. On careful examination of the inquiry report dated 28/07/2025, it is evident that no formal disciplinary proceedings were initiated. No charge-sheet was served upon the petitioners, no list of documents and witnesses were supplied and no presenting officer was appointed.

10. Statements of certain persons were recorded