SMT. JAYA TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the impugned termination order dated 30.05.2014 issued by respondent No. 3 as well as impugned letter-cum-order dated 14.03.2014.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2008 the respondents have published an advertisement for appointment on the post of Block Co-ordinator on contract basis under the Rajya Jal Swachhata Mission throughout sourcing. As the petitioner was fulfilling the requisite qualifications, she, therefore, submitted an application for appointment on the said posts. After facing the recruitment process, she was appointed on the post of Block Co- ordinator vide order dated 27.06.2008 and was posted at Teonthar. Although, the appointment was for a period of one year, however, the same was extendable on the basis of personal assessment and performance of employee. The petitioner had performed her duties efficiently with no complaint or enquiry, whatsoever. Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to the petitioner and other employees by respondent No. 4 alleging certain irregularities in performing the work. The petitioner and other employees they have personally met respondent Nos. 3 and 4 apprising their practical problems. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with show cause notices on the same dated i.e. 13.01.2014 whereby it has been alleged that the petitioner has failed to perform her duties diligently and has not filed the requisite reports in time. She was asked to submit her explanation. The petitioner filed her reply on 17.01.2014 whereby she has submitted her detailed explanation. However, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 has passed an order dated 14.03.2014 thereby a proposal was sent to respondent No. 2 for terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted her detailed reply on 22.03.2014, however, respondent No. 2 had passed an order dated 30.05.2014 thereby terminating the services of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the entire action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted by the respondents before passing the impugned order. He submits that the order of termination is a stigmatic order and, therefore, the same cannot have been passed without holding any enquiry. For the said purpose he relied on the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, 2001 (3) MPHT 397, Rajendra Tiwari alias Raju Vs. State of M.P. & others, 2005 (3) MPHT 69 and Jitendra Vs. State of M.P. & others, 2008 (5) MPHT 146.