SHASHIKANT TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality, validity and propriety of order dtd. 6/2/2023 (Annexure-P/3) whereby his services have been terminated by respondent No.3 on the ground that an offence vide Crime No.204/2022 under Sec. 7(A), 13(1)B, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is registered against the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is challenging the impugned order mainly on the ground that though the petitioner is a contractual employee, but merely on the basis of registration of an offence, his services cannot be terminated. He submits that unless the petitioner is held guilty, the action taken by the respondents terminating his services is not proper. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of Gujrat High Court passed on 8/2/2022 in R/Special Civil Application No.22681 of 2019 (Minakshiben Laxmanbhai Paraliya Vs. State of Gujrat) in which the Gujrat High Court has observed that the order of termination cannot be made only on the basis of registration of an offence and since that is referred in the impugned order, therefore, it can be considered to be stigmatic order in view of the several judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of the High Courts that before passing any stigmatic order, an enquiry is necessary and as such, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

(3.) However, I am not convinced with the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the order of appointment dtd. 10/4/2017 (Annexure-P/1) contained terms and conditions of appointment in which condition No.8 is important, which reads as under: