IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 17080 of 2014 DEEPENDRA SINGH SAVNER Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah Senior Advocate assisted with Ms.

Prashansa Baluapuri appeared for petitioner.

Shri Hitendra Singh G.A. appeared for respondent.

ORDER This petition has been filed while praying for the following reliefs:

"a) To allow this petition by issuing appropriate writ, direction οι order and to quash the impugned order dated 10-03-2014 (Annexure P/7) and order dated 30- 09-2014 (Annexure P/8 and all the consequential actions taken pursuant to the impugned order dated 10-

03-2014 and 30-09-2014, with cost and b) To reinstate the petitioner on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak Gram Panchayat, Dhabi and direct the respondents to not to illegally interfere in the work carried out by the petitioner on such post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak; and c) To direct the respondent to extend all the benefits to the petitioner, which the petitioner is entitled to, but denied to the petitioner on account of wrongful termination of services by the respondents;

d) Any other relief is this court may deemed fit in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice."

2. The petitioner has called in question the impugned order by which the petitioner who was working as Gram Rozgar Sahayak was removed on the allegation that in the preparation of Muster Roll, the petitioner herein committed irregularities and therefore, the petitioner after giving a show cause notice, was removed.

3. Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned deserves quashment inasmuch as, the order is stigmatic. If the respondents intended to remove the petitioner on the allegation of irregularities, the conduct of an inquiry was sine qua non. In the case in hand, no inquiry was conducted. The petitioner herein was issued a show cause notice and he submitted a reply to the said show cause notice which is contained in Annexure P/4 and P/5, respectively. As per the reply of the petitioner, he refuted the allegations levelled against him. Once there was rebuttal by the petitioner to the allegation levelled against him, the respondents did not have any other option but to conduct an inquiry. Senior Counsel while taking this Court to Annexure P/11 submits that conduct of an inquiry is sine qua non before removing the Gram Rozgar Sahayak. Thus, while placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal and Others reported in 2001 (3) MPHT 397 as well as Makhan Lal Ahirwar Vs. The State of M.P. and Ors. in WP No.5098/2012, this petition deserve quashment.

4. Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that there exists no provision in the guidelines which contemplate that holding of an inquiry is a condition precedent before removing a Gram Rozgar Sahayak. Against the petitioner, there were serious allegations which ultimately ensued in issuing of show cause notice to the petitioner contained in Annexure P/4. As per the allegations, the petitioner was guilty of not removing the names of beneficiaries from the Job Card. The petitioner's reply was not found satisfactory and accordingly, he was removed. He assailed the order by filing an appeal which was also dismissed. Thus, in such circumstances, no interference is warranted.

5. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.

6. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

7. The moot question which requires consideration in the present case is as regards as to whether the petitioner who was working in the capacity of a Gram Rozgar Sahayak could have been removed without holding of inquiry or not? Undisputedly, a perusal of show cause notice clearly reflects that the allegations of irregularities were levelled against the petitioner. The said show cause notice is reprod