Termination of contractual services for undisclosed prior criminal involvement requires a hearing and adherence to statutory safeguards.

The petitioner secured the first rank in the merit list for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak under the MGNREGA scheme but was initially denied an appointment

After a complaint, he joined service on 07.12.2012

On 11.02.2013, Respondent No. 4 terminated his services on the grounds that a criminal case (FIR No. 176/2009) involving offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 IPC was registered against him in 2009

The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on 15.04.2012

The petitioner challenged these orders, asserting he was merely an employee of the accused finance company, was never jailed for 48 hours, and the termination violated principles of natural justice and service rules

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner’s services without a show-cause notice or departmental inquiry violated the principles of natural justice and the recruitment conditions

2. Whether the criminal case registered prior to the appointment period justified termination under Clause 16(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Guarantee Parishad directions

The court applied the principle of audi alteram partem, mandating that punitive action with civil consequences requires a right of representation

Condition 15 of the recruitment notification dated 13.06.2012 was invoked, which requires providing a "reasonable opportunity to be heard" before termination

The court also applied Clause 16(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Guarantee Parishad directions, which stipulates that services can only be terminated if a criminal case is registered during the service period and the employee remains in jail for more than 48 hours

The court found the respondents' argument—that documentary evidence of a criminal case dispenses with the need for a hearing—legally impermissible

It reasoned that failing to issue a show-cause notice violated the respondents' own recruitment conditions (Condition 15)

Regarding the criminal case, the court observed that the FIR dated back to 2009, long before the petitioner’s 2012 appointment, and since the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail and was never incarcerated for 48 hours, the requirements of Clause 16(1) for termination were not met

The court further noted that the allegation of "concealment" of facts required a factual determination via an inquiry rather than a unilateral decision by the employer

Consequently, the bench found the appellate authority’s order to be a mechanical affirmation lacking procedural and substantive scrutiny

The court quashed the termination order dated 11.02.2013 and the appellate order dated 15.04.2012

It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Gram Rojgar Sahayak with continuity of service and all consequential benefits within 60 days