Recently, Division Bench comprising Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav (MP High Court )Held: when the services of a temporary employee or a probationer or contingency paid employee is brought to an end by passing innocuous order due to unsatisfactory nature of service or on account of an act for which some action is taken, but the termination is made in a simplicitor manner without conducting of inquiry or without casting any stigma on the employee, the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980 can be taken aid of.
However, when the termination is founded on acts of commission or omission, which amounts to misconduct. Such an order casts stigma on the conduct, character and work of the employee and hence, the principle of natural justice, opportunity of hearing and inquiry is requirement of law.
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of termination of his services
dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure-P-6) passed by the District & Sessions Judge,
Betul and the order dated 20.06.2018 (Annexure-P-9) whereby, the Registrar
General of the High Court of M.P., has rejected his departmental appeal.
The petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the case of Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal1, Krishna Pal v. District & Sessions Judge, Morena2, Ramcharan vs. State of M.P. and others3, and Malkhan Singh Malviya vs. State of M.P.4 and submits that on the basis of aforesaid legal
pronouncement when stigmatic order is passed against an employee, the same
requires conducting of a departmental enquiry and without departmental
enquiry, such an order casting stigma, is against the principle of natural justice.
The short question of law involved in the present case is as to whether
the services of an employee under the Rules relating to Recruitment and
Conditions of Service of Contingency Paid (District and Sessions Judge
Establishment) Employees Rules, 1980, can be terminated without conducting a departmental enquiry when an order of termination casts stigma on the
Court said it was in with the legal position expounded in various judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. However,
in the instant case, the question that arise for consideration, as stated above, is
squarely covered by the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case
of Krishna Pal Vs. District & Sessions Judge, Morena (supra). In the present
case, it is an admitted fact that neither charge-sheet was issued nor departmental
enquiry was conducted and order of termination attributes dereliction of duty
amounting to misconduct, and hence, the same is clearly stigmatic order.
The petitioner’s services are admittedly governed under the Rules of 1980. If the
facts and situation of the present case is examined in the context of the facts and
situation of the case of Krishna Pal (supra), it is found that this Court had
taken a view (para-5 of the said judgment) that Normally when the services of a
temporary employee or a probationer or contingency paid employee is brought
to an end by passing innocuous order due to unsatisfactory nature of service or
on account of an act for which some action is taken,