VIJAY BARDE Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 21/03/2017(Annexure-P/2), passed by the respondent No.2 by which the petitioner's service has been terminated and order dated 12/06/2017(Annexuer-P/3) by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Gram Sahayak and he was working on the said post, but vide order dated 21/03/2017 his services were terminated. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 12/06/2017. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned termination order passed by the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. From perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the termination order is a stigmatic order. It is well settled law that there is a difference between termination simplicitor and stigmatic termination order and stigmatic termination order could not be passed without holding proper enquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that the entire enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. Thus, in absence of detailed and proper enquiry, there is no concrete proof against the petitioner and the finding given on the basis of such erroneous enquiry is not maintainable. He further submits that as per the order dated 21/03/2017 issued by the respondent No.2, the petitioner's service was terminated on the ground of negligence of serious nature in construction of toilets under Swach Bharat Mission. He further submits that the learned Collector has erred while passing the impugned order and not appreciating the fact that when the inspection by the authorities was taking place the construction of toilets was still underway and remaining and, therefore, the petitioner was not negligent in his work. He also relied on the judgment of Sirsi Municipality by its President, Sirsi Vs. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis reported in (1973) 1 SCC 409 and submitted that while passing the impugned orders, the respondents have failed to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the respondents have acted in high handed manner and, without following the instructions/guidelines issued by the Higher Authorities, issued the impugned termination order. Thus, the action of the respondents is unjust and arbitrary. In the present case, neither any proper enquiry has been conducted nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned stigmatic order. In such circumstances, he prays that the impugned orders be set aside. He further relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal 2001 (3) MPLJ 616 and Prakash Chandra Kein vs. State of M.P. and others 2010 (3) MPLJ 179.