RAHUL AMOLACHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 5/3/2020, by which the contractual services of the petitioner have been put to an end on account of violation of clause 11.2 of the Human Resources Manual (in short H.R Manual). The said order is challenged mainly on the ground that the action of the respondent no.2 is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 24/12/2005. In the year 2014, the petitioner was assigned the work of District Community Mobilizer at Khargone. The petitioner was caught redhanded in the office premises. The Lokayukt Department has issued a letter to the respondent to transfer the petitioner to some other place. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Umaria by the respondents. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice. The petitioner had given reply to the said show cause notice. By the impugned order dtd. 5/3/2018, the services of the petitioner has been terminated in view of clause 11.2 of the H.R Manual.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid order is stigmatic in nature and therefore, the order of termination could not have been passed without holding any inquiry in the matter. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been discriminated as the employees facing the cases by Lokayukt have only been transferred and they have not been terminated by the respondent no.2. Thus, the order is discriminatory in nature.