Radheshyam Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67541
1 WP-3387-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
nd
ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3387 of 2020
RADHESHYAM YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Siddhant Kochar - Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Rao - Panel Lawyer for State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) A writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
07.01.2020 (P/5) and also Annexures P/3 & P/4.
(ii) A command to Respondents to allow the Petitioner to
work as Rojgar Sahayak and give all consequential benefits.
(iii) Any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as
Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Temrubahar, District Harda, on
21.09.2012. A show-cause notice was issued to him on 29.03.2019 alleging
certain irregularities in the implementation of Government schemes. After
considering his reply, his services were terminated vide order dated
10.04.2019. His appeal was rejected on 01.06.2019 and the revision preferred
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:52:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67541
2 WP-3387-2020
by him was also rejected by order dated 07.01.2020. Aggrieved thereby, the

petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid
orders and reinstatement.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak on 21.09.2012 and his
services were subsequently terminated vide order dated 10.04.2019. The
appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed on
01.06.2019, and the revision preferred thereafter was also rejected by
respondent No.2 vide order dated 07.01.2020. It is further submitted that a
show-cause notice dated 29.03.2019 was issued to the petitioner, to which he
submitted his reply; however, the same was not duly considered by the
authorities. It is further submitted that the impugned order casts a stigma
upon the petitioner and has been passed without conducting a proper enquiry.
It is, therefore, submits that the termination order, having been passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice and without affording the
petitioner an effective opportunity to defend the allegations, is unsustainable
in law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this
Court to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior
in W.A. No.1166 of 2017, vide order dated 08.03.2018, as well as the order
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in W.P. No.24802 of
2019, vide order dated 10.08.2023, and submits that, in view of the aforesaid
judgments, the impugned order dated 07.01.2020 (Annexure-P/5), as well as
the orders dated 10.04.2019 (Annexure-P/3) and 01.06.2019 (Annexure-P/4),
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:52:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67541
3 WP-3387-2020
deserve to be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner
was found to be inefficient, negligent and involved in corrupt practices and,
accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to him. Since, according to the
respondents, no reply to the show-cause notice was received, the impugned
order was passed without any further enquiry. It is further submitted that the
preliminary enquiry revealed that the petitioner was not attentive towards
discharge of his duties and, therefore, the authorities were justified in
passing the order of termination.
6. However, it is pertinent to note that the return filed by the
respondents does not controvert the specific averment made by the petitioner
that he had submitted his reply to the show-cause notice through WhatsApp
to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. In fact, no specific
assertion has been made in the return denying receipt of such reply.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. After going through the judgment of the Apex Court in Jitendra Vs.
State of M.P. & Others, reported in 2008 (4) MPLJ 670, as also the judgment
of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi
Shiksha Mission, Bhopal, reported in 2001 (3) MPLJ 616, wherein it has
been held that where an order of termination is stigmatic in nature, the same
cannot be treated as an order of termination simpliciter and, therefore, cannot
be passed without following the procedure prescribed by law, this Court
finds that the aforesaid principle has been consistently followed in
subsequent decisions. Reference has also been made to the order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:52:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67541
4 WP-3387-2020
10.05.2019 passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.402/2019 (The

Mission Director, National Health Mission, Bhopal Vs. Mukesh Yadav &
Others); the judgment of the Division Bench in Mission Director,
RCH/RCH/NRHM Vs. Ranjit Jain & Another, reported in 2011 (4)
M.P.H.T. 266; the orders dated 13.03.2019 passed in W.P. No.8682/2018
(Kishan Singh Dudwe Vs. State of M.P. & Others ), dated 04.07.2022 passed
in W.P. No.19867/2021 (Madhav Awasya Vs. State of M.P. & Others), dated
25.04.2022 passed in W.P. No.23267/2019 ( Omprakash Gurjar Vs.
Panchayat and Rural Development & Others), and dated 08.03.2018 passed
in W.A. No.1166/2017 ( Malkhan Singh Malviya Vs. State of M.P. ), wherein
the aforesaid principle has been applied in matters concerning contractual
employees, including Gram Rojgar Sahayaks.
9. The settled position emerging from the aforesaid decisions is that
merely because the appointment is contractual/Gram Rojgar Sahayak, the
employer does not acquire an unfettered right to dispense with the services
of an employee by an order which is founded upon allegations of misconduct
and carries a stigma. If the termination is founded upon such allegations and
is punitive in substance, it cannot be sustained as a mere termination
simpliciter without adherence to the principles of natural justice and the
procedure prescribed by law. Consequently, the impugned order dated
10.04.2019 (Annexure-P/3), the appellate order dated 01.06.2019 (Annexure-
P/4) and the revisional order dated 07.01.2020 (Annexure-P/5) are hereby set
aside. The matter is remitted to the competent authority for consideration
afresh from the stage of submission of reply to the show-cause notice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:52:37

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67541
5 WP-3387-2020
10. The petitioner is directed to submit his reply to the show-cause

notice, in physical form, before the competent authority on 22.09.2026. Upon
receipt of the reply, the competent authority shall duly consider the same and
thereafter proceed further in the matter strictly in accordance with law and
the applicable policy governing the engagement and removal of Gram Rojgar
Sahayak. Needless to say, before taking any further adverse action against
the petitioner, the competent authority shall ensure compliance with the
principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed under the
applicable policy and law.
11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The competent
authority shall consider the matter independently and take an appropriate
decision in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in
this order.
12. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
julie

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:52:37