Stigmatic termination of a contractual Gram Rojgar Sahayak requires natural justice and prescribed disciplinary procedure.

The petitioner was appointed as a Gram Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Temrubahar, District Harda, on 21.09.2012.

A show-cause notice dated 29.03.2019 alleged irregularities in the implementation of Government schemes. The petitioner claimed to have submitted his reply through WhatsApp to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat; however, the respondents asserted that no reply had been received.

The petitioner’s services were terminated on 10.04.2019, his appeal was dismissed on 01.06.2019, and his revision was rejected on 07.01.2020. He consequently invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the termination, appellate and revisional orders, and reinstatement with consequential benefits.

The Court applied the principle that an order of termination carrying a stigma or founded on allegations of misconduct cannot be treated as termination simpliciter, even where the employee is contractual or engaged as a Gram Rojgar Sahayak; such termination is punitive in substance and must comply with the principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed by law.

The Court relied principally on Jitendra v. State of M.P. & Others, 2008 (4) MPLJ 670, and Rahul Tripathi v. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal, 2001 (3) MPLJ 616, along with The Mission Director, National Health Mission, Bhopal v. Mukesh Yadav & Others, W.A. No. 402/2019, order dated 10.05.2019; Mission Director, RCH/RCH/NRHM v. Ranjit Jain & Another, 2011 (4) M.P.H.T. 266; Kishan Singh Dudwe v. State of M.P. & Others, W.P. No. 8682/2018; Madhav Awasya v. State of M.P. & Others, W.P. No. 19867/2021; Omprakash Gurjar v. Panchayat and Rural Development & Others, W.P. No. 23267/2019; and Malkhan Singh Malviya v. State of M.P., W.A. No. 1166/2017.

The governing rule was that contractual status does not confer an unfettered right to terminate an employee through a stigmatic and punitive order without procedural safeguards.

The termination order was based on allegations that the petitioner was inefficient, negligent and involved in corrupt practices, thereby making the order stigmatic and punitive rather than a termination simpliciter.

The respondents’ return did not specifically deny the petitioner’s assertion that he had submitted his reply through WhatsApp, nor did it establish that the reply had been duly considered.

Applying the settled rule that a stigmatic termination of even a contractual Gram Rojgar Sahayak requires adherence to natural justice and the prescribed enquiry procedure, the Court found the impugned orders legally unsustainable.

It therefore considered it appropriate to remit the matter to the competent authority from the stage of submission of the reply, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations.

The matter was remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration from the stage of submission of the reply to the show-cause notice.

The petitioner was directed to submit his reply in physical form before the competent authority on 22.09.2026, after which the authority was required to consider it and proceed strictly in accordance with the applicable law, policy and principles of natural justice.

The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the allegations and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.