Stigmatic termination of daily-rated employees for misconduct necessitates a formal inquiry following principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a daily rated employee, challenged the order of termination dated 29.09.2015

The respondents terminated the petitioner's services based on allegations that he prepared a fraudulent challan and deposited Rs. 960/- to shield another individual, Barmendra Singh Baghel, from a potential FIR regarding defalcation

The respondents invoked Rule 10(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari (Sewa Ki Shartein) Niyam, 2013, to effect the termination

The petitioner contended that the termination was stigmatic and passed without conducting a mandatory departmental inquiry

1. Whether the termination of a daily rated employee on allegations of misconduct without conducting a formal inquiry is legally sustainable

2. Whether the respondents correctly invoked Rule 10(1)(b) of the Rules of 2013 when the primary allegation against the petitioner was not theft or defalcation of government property

Rule 10(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari (Sewa Ki Shartein) Niyam, 2013, which defines "serious misconduct" as theft and misappropriation of government property

Legal principle established in Rahul Tripathi v. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal (2001 (3) MPLJ 616), which mandates that if the services of even a daily rated employee are to be dispensed with on allegations of misconduct or illegality, a proper inquiry and adherence to the principles of natural justice are required

The court examined the nature of the allegations and found that the petitioner was accused of being "instrumental in preparing a challan" and "falsifying documents" to protect a third party, rather than committing theft or misappropriation himself

The court determined that the respondents proceeded under a misconception by applying Rule 10(1)(b), which specifically pertains to theft and defalcation

The court reasoned that since the termination was based on specific allegations of misconduct, the respondents were legally obligated to conduct a full inquiry and afford the petitioner a meaningful opportunity to represent his case before passing the impugned order

The failure to conduct such an inquiry rendered the termination order procedurally flawed

It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service but clarified that he would not be entitled to any back wages

The court held that while the termination was set aside, the respondents are not precluded from initiating a fresh inquiry against the petitioner, provided they adhere to the principles of natural justice and follow the due process of law

The petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly