Termination of long-serving employees without regular inquiry or justification for unsanctioned status violates statutory service rules.

The petitioners were appointed as Peons, Cooks, Watermen, and Watchmen between 2011 and 2014 by the Block Education Officer (BEO) under a State Circular dated 29.10.1996.

After rendering 12 to 14 years of unblemished service, a mass termination order was issued on 04.03.2024, dismissing 46 employees.

This action followed a Lokayukt complaint and a subsequent Collector’s enquiry, which alleged that the then-BEO had made appointments without sanctioned posts and without following prescribed procedures.

The petitioners challenged this order, asserting they were governed by the 2013 Service Rules requiring a formal inquiry before termination.

1. Whether the termination of the petitioners without a regular inquiry was legally sustainable under the Madhya Pradesh Daily Wages Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013.

2. Whether the classification of the petitioners’ appointments as "illegal" for want of sanctioned posts justifies mass termination after a decade of service.

The court primarily applied Rules 10 and 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Daily Wages Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013, which mandate a regular inquiry to prove major misconduct before removal.

The Division Bench precedent in Nagar Palika Nigam Ratlam v. Moinuddin Qureshi (W.A. No. 1412/2018), which establishes that termination without inquiry for covered employees is an error.

The doctrine from State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) through the lens of Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), which distinguishes between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments and cautions against weaponizing the Umadevi judgment to deny rights to long-serving employees.

The court found that the petitioners, having served for over a decade and being classified as permanent daily wagers, were protected by the statutory safeguards of the 2013 Rules and Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

The court critiqued the administrative action as arbitrary because the respondents failed to provide evidence or reasoning for selectively identifying these 46 individuals as being against "non-sanctioned" posts out of a larger pool of 82.

The court noted a fatal procedural lapse: while the initial appointments were based on Gram Panchayat recommendations, no representative from the Panchayat was included in the enquiry committee.

Applying Jaggo (supra), the court held that terminating employees after 13 years of "indispensable service" under the guise of technicalities like "unsanctioned posts"—without precise documentation—violates the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16.

The Writ Petitions were allowed, and the impugned termination order dated 04.03.2024 was quashed; respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioners in their respective posts with all consequential benefits within sixty days.