Engagement of proxy teacher by Guruji under EGS justifies termination without formal departmental inquiry.

The appellant was appointed as a "Guruji" (instructor) in a Shiksha Guarantee Shala in 2002.

On 14.12.2005, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila Panchayat, Panna, terminated his services following complaints and an inspection report revealing that the appellant was residing 10 kilometers away and had engaged a proxy teacher (Pratap Nai) for a monthly payment of Rs. 800/-.

The appellant challenged this before the Commissioner, Sagar Division, obtained a stay, and continued working until the Writ Court dismissed his petition on 12.08.2024.

The appellant contended that the CEO was not the competent authority to terminate him and that principles of natural justice were violated.

1. Whether the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, possessed the legal competence to pass the order of termination under the Madhya Pradesh Shiksha Guarantee Scheme.

2. Whether the termination order was vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the alleged lack of a proper hearing or show-cause notice.

Under the Madhya Pradesh Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS), the power to appoint and remove Gurujis is vested in the Palak Shikshak Sangh (Parent-Teacher Association), subject to the approval of the competent district authority.

Per the scheme’s administrative framework, the District E.G.S. Committee—comprising the District Collector as Chairman and the CEO of the Zila Panchayat as Member Secretary—supervises and administers these schools.

Legally, if a reasonable opportunity is offered via a show-cause notice and the employee fails to respond, the technical plea of a full departmental enquiry is not sustainable.

The Court rejected the appellant's challenge to the CEO's jurisdiction, reasoning that as the Member Secretary of the District E.G.S. Committee, the CEO is an "integral part" of the body governing the scheme and thus competent to issue the order.

Regarding the merits, the Court found the inspection report's findings—that the appellant employed a "proxy teacher"—to be a fundamental breach of the Guruji’s duty to personally discharge responsibilities to the local community.

On procedural fairness, the Court noted that a show-cause notice was indeed issued, but the appellant failed to reply; therefore, the principles of natural justice were satisfied as he was given a reasonable opportunity which he chose not to avail.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the underlying Scheme itself had been discontinued by the State, rendering the appellant's claim for reinstatement effectively moot.

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition, finding no illegality or perversity in the termination.

The Writ Appeal was dismissed.