Bheekam Singh Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 35590 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC030226372025
BHEEKAM SINGH JATAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
______________________________________________________________________
Appearance:
Shri Arun Dudawat – Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel – Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief(s):-
(i) Issuing a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order or
direction, thereby quashing the impugned orders dated 26.08.2025 (Annexure
P/1) passed by respondent no.3 with further direction to reinstate petitioner with
all consequential benefits forthwith.
(ii) Passing any other Order or Direction, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii) Costs of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioner.
(iv) Issuing a writ a certiorari or mandamus any other suitable writ or
order or direction thereby declaring the clause 6.9 ( ) of the the circular dated
ख
24.06.2025 (Annexure P/6) as illegal and with further direction that petitioner

02
cannot be terminated from service in view of clause 6.9 ( ) of the circular dated
ख
24.06.2025.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is holding the
post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and a false criminal case got registered against the
petitioner at Crime No.09/2024 on 07.01.2024 (Annexure P/4). Pursuant to
which the petitioner is remained in custody for more than 48 hours and ultimately
enlarged on bail by High Court. Thereafter, without giving any show cause
notice and without any opportunity of being heard, the services of the petitioner
has been terminated vide order dated 26.08.2025. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the services of petitioner is on contract basis and even
the contractual services cannot be terminated on the ground of pendency of the
criminal case and even the contractual services cannot be terminated without
giving any opportunity of hearing. Meaning thereby, before taking any action,
the principle of natural justice is must be complied with and in the present case
without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the services of the
petitioner has been terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that the controversy involved in the present petition has already been
decided by the co-ordinate Bench vide judgment dated 15.04.2026 passed in Writ
Petition No.35882/2025.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in
terms of Clause 6.9 of circular dated 24.06.2025, petitioner's services are liable to
be terminated, as the petitioner is remain in custody for more than 48 hours and
further submitted that even though, there is no requirement to issue a show cause
notice to the petitioner before terminating the services.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From the perusal judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
submitted by the petitioner, paragraphs 9 to 17 are relevant, which are
reproduced as under:-

03
“9. It is settled in law that even contractual employee is required to be
given adequate opportunity of hearing before terminating his services. This
has been so held by this Court in the case of K.C. Joshi (supra). The Court
held as under:
"9.Mr Datta however, contended that the earlier order dated December 7,
1963 recites that the appointment could be terminated by either side by one
month's notice and that was the power invoked in terminating the service
of the appellant. The order dated December 7, 1963 was at the time when
the appellant was appointed on probation. On successful completion of
probation, the appellant became a member of the regular establishment.
The contract of service, if any, has to be in tune with Articles 14 and 16
and such unilateral power of termination of service without giving reasons
is so abhorrent that it smacks of discrimination and therefore, violative of
Article 14. The High Court brushed aside this aspect by merely observing
that "in order to dismiss one employee on the ground of unsuitability, the
Government or the Corporation is not required to dismiss all". If it is
suggested that you can dismiss anyone without a semblance of an enquiry
or without whisper of the principles of natural justice, then such an
approach overlooks the well-established principle that where State action
affects livelihood or attaches stigma, the punitive action can be taken after
holding an enquiry according to the principles of natural justice. In other
words, an unbiased Judge, and an opportunity to controvert the allegation
and to clear oneself are the minimum principles of natural justice which
must inform such drastic power of dismissal affecting livelihood of an
employee. If the observation of the High Court was with reference to the
contention of the order being violative of Articles 14 and 16, it overlooks
the fact that the Corporation attempted to sustain its action on the ground
that the services of the appellant were no more required which will
certainly impel the court to enquire whether the post had been abolished or
whether retaining the juniors, the inconvenient person was thrown out
under the garb of being surplus. Therefore, the approach of the High Court
in this behalf is not appreciable."
The ratio of aforesaid case was of course in the case of member of regular
establishment, however, the observations made would apply to a Gram
Rojgar Sahayak also where he is appointed on contract basis.
8. The respondent no.3 has invoked Clause 6.9 of the Circular dated
24/6/2025 while passing the impugned order. Said clause empowers the
authority to dispense with the service of Gram Rojgar Sahayak in case
challan has been filed after obtaining sanction for prosecution in relation to
offence of corruption or moral turpitude. As per the petitioner, such action
could not be taken against him without complying with principles of
natural justice. On the other hand, counsel for the State submitted that no
opportunity is required to be given when the petitioner has been found
guilty in investigation and challan has been filed.
9. Thus, the issue for consideration of this Court is as to whether Clause

04
6.9( ) of Circular dated 24/6/2025 is illegal being in violation of basic
क
principle of natural justice?
10. Clause 6 of the Circular dated 24/6/2025 deals with discipline and
control with regard to services of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak. Clause 6.1. to
6.5 deals with the manner in which the action is to be taken against a Gram
Rojgar Sahayak in case of any departmental complaint/misconduct. Clause
6.6 thereof provides that upon proof of embezzlement of amount, acts of
moral turpitude or gross indiscipline, the services of a Gram Rojgar
Sahayak can be terminated. This clause also incorporates application of
principles of natural justice inasmuch as service of Gram Rojgar Sahayak
can be terminated only when act of embezzlement of amount, acts of moral
turpitude or gross indiscipline is proved. To prove such act, the opportunity
is required to be given. Clause 6.7 thereafter provides that in case of
complaint/charge, the reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be given to
the Gram Rojgar Sahayak. Thus, from reading Clause 6.1 to 6.7, it is seen
that before taking departmental action against Gram Rojgar Sahayak on the
ground of misconduct, the principles of natural justice needs to be
complied with.
11. Clause 6.9 of the circular deals with the situation when a Gram Rojgar
Sahayak is involved in a criminal case. It provides for termination of his
service upon filling of challan in cases of corruption and involving moral
turpitude. Clause 6.9, being relevant, is reproduced hereunder:-
"6.9 /
यददि ककससी गग्राम ररोजगग्रार सहग्रायक के वविरूदद्ध लरोकग्रायकक्त
ईओडबलय कग्रा टैप प्रकरण अथविग्रा आपरग्राधद्धक प्रकरण पंजसीबदद्ध हयआ
हरो क्तरो उसके वविरूदद्ध उपररोकक्त प्रग्राविद्धग्राननों के अनयसग्रार शग्रासककीय कग्रायर
सके वविरक्त सखके जग्रानके कग्रा आदिकेश प्रसग्राररक्त ककयग्रा जग्राएगग्रा। यददि अनयबपंद्ध
अविधद्ध समग्रापक्त हरोनके क्तक सपंबपंधद्धक्त गग्राम ररोजगग्रार सहग्रायक सक्षम
नयग्रायग्रालय सके दिरोषमयकक्त नहहपं हरोक्तग्रा हटै क्तरो आगग्रामसी विषर्ष हकेक्तय सपंवविदिग्रा
नविसीनसीकरण नहहपं ककयग्रा जग्राएगग्रा। इस प्रकग्रार के प्रकरणनों म ननमन
आद्धग्रार पर सपंवविदिग्रा सकेविग्रा भसी समग्रापक्त ककी जग्राएगसी
( )
क जब भ्रषटग्राचग्रार यग्रा अनय नटैनक्तक पक्तन म अपंक्तविर्षललक्त दिग्राणणडक
अपरग्राद्ध म सक्षम प्रग्राधद्धकग्रारह दविग्रारग्रा अलभयरोजन सविसीककनक्त के पशचग्राक्तत
उसके वविरूदद्ध बग्रालग्रान प्रसक्तयक्त ककयग्रा गयग्रा हरो।
( )
ख उसके ननरूदद्ध ककए जग्रानके के ददिनग्रापंक सके यददि उसके यग्रा क्तरो ककससी
48
दिग्राणणडक आररोप पर यग्रा अनयथग्रा घपंटके सके अधद्धक ककी कग्रालग्राविधद्ध के
ललए अलभरक्षग्रा म ननरूदद्ध ककयग्रा गयग्रा हरो।
12. Aforesaid Clause 6.9 can be bifurcated into following three categories:
(i) when a criminal case/trap case is registered against a Gram Rojgar Sahayak
by Lokayukt/EOW, the order to keep him away from the work can be passed;

05
(ii) if the Gram Rojgar Sahayak is not acquitted in criminal case till conclusion
of his contract period, his contract shall not be renewed for the next year; and
with:
(iii) in the following cases, the contract of service can be dispensed
(a) when in cases of corruption or moral turpitude, the challan has been filed
against Gram Roj Sahayak after obtaining sanction from the
competent authority; and
(b) if he is detained for 48 hours in case of any criminal offence.
13. Sub clause ( ) of Clause 6.9 of the Circular dated 24/6/2025 thus provides
क
for termination of service of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak merely on filing of challan
in the criminal case involving corruption and/or moral turpitude.
14. It is the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is
innocent till he is proved guilty. It is profitable to refer to following observations
of Apex Court in this regard in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State
of Maharashtra, reported in (2024)9 SCC 813"
“18. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an
accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal
jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until
proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever
stringent the penal law may be."
Thus, at the stage of filing of challan, the accused in a criminal case
cannot be said to be guilty of the offence alleged against him and, therefore,
mere filing of challan in criminal case cannot be foundation for taking an
action against him in service jurisprudence.
14. It is also settled in law that while continuance of a criminal trial, the
employer can always simultaneously conduct an enquiry to judge the
suitability of the employee to continue in service. However, for judging the
suitability also, opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the
employee as it is concerning his livelihood. At the cost of repetition, the
Apex Court in the case of K.C. Joshi (supra) observed "an opportunity to
controvert the allegation and to clear oneself are the minimum principles of
natural justice which must inform such drastic power of dismissal affecting
livelihood of an employee". As observed hereinbefore, even for a
contractual employee, reasonable opportunity of hearing is required to be
given before passing any stigmatic order against a contractual employee
also.
15. The learned Govt. Advocate is perfectly justified in submitting that in
cases of corruption and acts involving moral turpitude, there cannot be any
leniency in favour of an employee. There should be zero tolerance in such
cases. However, for holding an employee guilty of such act of moral
turpitude and/or corruption, there has to be a finding of guilty recorded
either in criminal case or in an enquiry to be conducted by employer. As
observed above, mere filing of challan is not a finding of guilt against the
accused. Therefore, before taking any action against an employee based
upon his involvement in criminal case, the respondents are required to

06
record a finding of guilt against the petitioner. Needless to mention, being a
contractual employee, the petitioner cannot demand for a regular
departmental enquiry as contemplated under Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. The nature of enquiry
would depend upon the discretion of employer and its satisfaction about
guilt. However, action cannot and should not be taken without complying
with even basic principles of natural justice.
16. Thus, denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before
terminating his services invoking Clause 6.9 of Circular dated
24/6/2025 is found to be in violation of principles of natural justice. This
petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of with the following
directions:
(i). Clause 6.9 ( ) of Circular dated 24/6/2025 is therefore declared
क
illegal to the extent it denies opportunity of hearing to the concerned
Gram Rojgar Sahayak. The respondents are accordingly directed to
incorporate the provision for affording reasonable opportunity of hearing
to a Gram Rojgar Sahayak before taking action against him under Clause
6.9( ) of Circular dated 24/6/2025.
क
(ii). The aforesaid direction is however not applicable in cases of
renewal of service contract of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak. In other
words while renewing the service contract, the competent authority
is at liberty to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and
take a decision in the matter and in such cases of renewal of
contract, the principles of natural justice would not be applicable.
However, dispensing with principles of natural justice does not
mean that the authority is absolved of its obligation to record reason
for such non-renewal. Such a decision taken by the competent
authority would also be open to judicial review by this Court.
(iii). The impugned order dated 28/8/2025 (Annexure P/1) is found
to be unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The
respondent no.3 is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and to pass fresh order in the matter. Since,
the petitioner is already out of service since 28/8/2025, his
reinstatement in service shall remain in abeyance and is subject to
fresh order that may be passed by respondent no.3.
17. The petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.”
6. The co-ordinate Bench has already considered the Clause 6.9 ( ) of
क
circular dated 24.06.2025 and held that the services of Gram Rojgar Sahayak
cannot be terminated without complying the principle of natural justice and in the

07
present case also before terminating the services of petitioner, no opportunity of
hearing is provided to the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 26.08.2025
(Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate
the services of the petitioner. However, the liberty is granted to take a fresh
action against the petitioner, if the petitioner is convicted in the criminal case.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
mani
Digitally signed by SUBASRI MANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=a649f7a3438773bf21218351047
53746385b9875063a47872ca437af06fff8
ef, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID -
7064276, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=ca216ca75ef9e38c3785c8
bbe6486f7003c0b639e6ea08f81acf60088
9a329f3, cn=SUBASRI MANI
Date: 2026.11.04 17:31:16 +05'30'
SUBASR
I MANI