IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 8 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 6589 of 2023 SMT. SARITA TRIPATHI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Teerathraj Pillai - P.L. for the respondent/State.

Shri Manan Agrawal - Advocate for the respondents No.2, 5 and 6.

ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

i) To quash the impugned order date 1.3.2023 (annexure P/13) and order dated 28.12.2022 (annexure P/9) and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstated the services of the petitioner on the post of District Manager, Micro Finance, M.P. Rural Livelihood Mission, Zila Panchayat, Jabalpur, district Jabalpur, M.P.

ii) To produce relevant record pertaining to the impugned order

1.3.2023 (anneuxre P/13).

iii) To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner.

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

2.8.2018 on the post of District Manager, Micro Finance, M.P. Rural Livelihood Mission, Zila Panchayat, Jabalpur on contract basis w.e.f. 2.8.2018 to 1.4.2020 and thereafter further w.e.f. 1.4.2020 to 16.2.2021. That, a show cause notice dated 26.9.2022 was issued to the petitioner regarding recovery of amount under section 89 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, in regard to financial irregularities committed by the petitioner in the financial year 2021-22, for depositing Rs.1,14,500/- on 4.10.2022 failing which further proceedings under section 89 and 92 of the Act would be carried out and the renewal of contract of the petitioner services have been declined. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice stating that she has not constructed any work and the said work was carried out by Maa Narmada Swa Sahayata, Smooh, hence, respondent no.6 issued notice to other members of Maa Narmada Swa Sahayata Smooh. Pursuant to the said notice, petitioner as well as other members of Maa Narmada Swa Sahayata Smooh appeared and submitted their statements stating that the work was carried out by Swa Sahayata Samooh, but the said fact was not considered and the petitioner has been transferred by order dated 27.12.2022 from Jabalpur to Seoni. Further, the respondent no.4 vide impugned order dated 28.12.2022 declined to renew the contract of the petitioner observing the fact of Financial irregularity as per audit report dated 19.11.2021 by ASAN & Associates, ii) Medically unfit for work 94 leaves in a year and iii) poor attitude towards work and objectives of NRLM and declined to interfere with the ACRs of the petitioner recorded by the C.E.O. Zila Panchayat so also declined to renew the contract of the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the order dated 28.12.2022, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent no.3, however, the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 1.3.2023 by affirming the order dated

28.12.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said action of the respondent is contrary to clause 9.2 of the policy dated 24.2.2020 issued by the respondent no.1 as well as the law laid down by Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.1166/2017. It is further submitted that the respondent no.4 did not consider the fact that petitioner never carried out the work of construction of concerned buildings which was constructed by Maa Narmada Swa Sahayata Smooh. Without considering the statements of the President as well as members of Maa Narmada Swa Sahayata Samooh as well as the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned orders have been passed which is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

4. Per contra, counsel f