### Benefit of Sthai Karmi Status Cannot Be Withdrawn Through De-regularization or Without Proper Disciplinary Inquiry

The petitioner was appointed as an unskilled Sthai Karmi (permanent worker) in the Municipal Council Bareli, District Raisen, effective from 01.07.2021, under the State Government Circular dated 07.10.2016.

Following a complaint and subsequent inspections that found the petitioner absent from duty (03.12.2024 to 07.12.2024) and the toilets under his supervision unclean, the Chief Municipal Officer (Respondent No. 2) issued show-cause notices.

Disregarding the petitioner's reply, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2024, removing the petitioner’s name from the "benefit of Sthai Karmi" status, effectively de-regularizing him.

The petitioner challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging malafides and procedural illegality.

1. Whether the respondent authority has the legal provision or jurisdiction to withdraw the status/benefit of Sthai Karmi as a form of punishment for misconduct.

2. Whether the impugned order of de-regularization violated the statutory procedures prescribed under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961.

State Government Circular No. F 5-1/2013/1/3 dated 07.10.2016, which classifies daily wagers into permanent categories (unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled) and mandates that they be treated as industrial labourers.

Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961, governs the service of such permanent categories of industrial labourers.

Under the Schedule of the 1961 Act, specifically Clause XII and Clause XIII, the permissible punishments for misconduct are limited to warnings, censures, fines, deductions in wages, suspension, or dismissal; "de-regularization" or withdrawal of status is not a recognized penalty.

The court determined that since the petitioner was classified under the 07.10.2016 Circular, he attained the status of an industrial labourer, making the Standing Orders Act of 1961 applicable to his service conditions.

The court reasoned that while the respondents have the authority to take disciplinary action for negligence or absence, such action must strictly adhere to the punishments prescribed in the Act.

The respondents committed a legal error by "de-regularizing" the petitioner, as this specific punishment does not exist under Clause XII or XIII of the Standing Orders Act.

The court noted that any such disciplinary action requires a proper inquiry, providing both parties the opportunity to adduce evidence, which was bypassed in this instance of summarily withdrawing the Sthai Karmi benefit.

The court quashed the impugned order dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief Municipal Officer.

The writ petition was allowed, though the court granted the respondents liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary action against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the law.