Contractual Gram Rojgar Sahayak’s Termination Stands After MP HC Finds His Show-Cause Reply Was Considered

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s contractual termination warranted interference in the Court’s writ jurisdiction.

The court held

The Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to quash the termination order dated 5 March 2024 or the appellate order dated 13 August 2024.

It also directed

No order as to costs was made.

01Facts

The petitioner was engaged on a contractual basis as a Gram Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Karpur Raiyat, Janpad Panchayat Pandhana, District Khandwa.

¶ 1–3

Respondent No. 3 terminated his engagement by order dated 5 March 2024.

¶ 1–3

The petitioner appealed, but the Collector, District Khandwa, rejected the appeal on 13 August 2024.

¶ 1–3

He then sought, under Article 226 of the Constitution, to quash both orders, arguing that he had not received a charge-sheet or a proper departmental enquiry and that the termination order was passed by an incompetent authority.

¶ 1–3

The State submitted that the petitioner had received show-cause notices, including one dated 19 January 2024, and had replied on 29 January 2024; it also relied on a circular dated 24 July 2023 concerning disciplinary authority.

¶ 1–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s contractual termination warranted interference in the Court’s writ jurisdiction.

¶ 5

ii.2. Whether the procedure adopted by the respondents was contrary to applicable guidelines or violated the principles of natural justice.

¶ 5, 7

iii.3. Whether the appellate order dated 13 August 2024 suffered from illegality warranting interference.

¶ 5

03Law Applied

Under Article 226, the Court may review contractual-service decisions alleged to be arbitrary, contrary to binding instructions, or violative of natural justice; however, contractual engagement does not itself confer an indefeasible right to continued service or automatic renewal.

¶ 6

The terms of appointment, applicable scheme and guidelines, and requirements of fairness govern the parties’ rights and obligations.

¶ 6

The Court also considered whether the petitioner had been given an opportunity to explain his conduct before termination.

¶ 7

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s contractual status did not itself guarantee continued engagement, while recognizing that such status did not exclude judicial review.

¶ 6

The respondents produced the show-cause notice dated 19 January 2024 and the petitioner’s reply dated 29 January 2024, indicating that he had been asked to explain his conduct and that his explanation was considered before termination.

¶ 7–8

On that record, the Court rejected the contention that no opportunity had been given and found no sufficient ground to interfere with either the termination order or the appellate order.

¶ 7–8