The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a stigmatic order of termination can be passed only after conducting a regular departmental inquiry in accordance with principles of natural justice, adding that where an order of termination is founded on allegations amounting to misconduct, the employee must be allowed to defend himself, including the right to cross-examine witnesses.

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an order terminating the services of an Additional Government Pleader and Additional Government Advocate. The petitioner contended that his services had been terminated on the basis of a fact-finding inquiry without any regular departmental proceedings, charge-sheet or opportunity of hearing.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat observed: "It is a settled principle of law that a stigmatic order of termination can be passed only after conducting a regular departmental inquiry. In the present case, the termination order has been passed solely on the basis of a fact-finding inquiry, in which petitioner was neither afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing nor given any opportunity to cross-examine witnesses."

Advocate Soumya Pawaiya appeared for the petitioner, while Monika Mishra, Government Advocate, appeared for the respondent-State.

Background

The petitioner was appointed as an Additional Government Pleader and Additional Government Advocate in the District Court, Shivpuri, by an order. He was conducting prosecution on behalf of the State in a murder trial arising out of a criminal case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC.

According to the petitioner, the name of an eyewitness was inadvertently omitted from the list of witnesses. After the omission was noticed during the course of proceedings, the names of the omitted witnesses were subsequently included, and the witnesses were examined before the trial court. Thereafter, when dismissing a bail application, the trial court directed the Principal Secretary of the Law and Legislative Affairs Department to examine whether the omission was deliberate or merely negligent.

Pursuant to the directions, a show-cause notice was issued, and a fact-finding inquiry was conducted. The petitioner submitted replies explaining that the omission was inadvertent and that corrective steps had been taken immediately. However, after more than three years, his services were terminated through an order. Aggrieved thereby, he approached the High Court.

Court's Observations

The High Court examined the record and found that the petitioner's services had been terminated on the allegation of having committed "serious negligence" while conducting the prosecution. The Court observed that the language employed in the termination order clearly attached a stigma to the petitioner and was therefore not a simpliciter termination.

The Court noted that the impugned order had been passed without holding any regular departmental inquiry. The Bench observed that since the order was stigmatic in nature, a regular departmental inquiry was mandatory before any such action could be taken against the petitioner. Referring to several decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court, the Court reiterated that termination founded upon allegations of misconduct cannot be sustained without compliance with principles of natural justice.

Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India, the Court reproduced the requirements of a reasonable opportunity and noted that such an opportunity includes: "An opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence."

The Court found that the petitioner had neither been afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing nor been given any opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during the fact-finding exercise that formed the basis of the impugned action. The Bench therefore held that the termination order could not be sustained.

The Court observed: "The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any enquiry. Since impugned order dated 13.3.2025 (annexure P/1) is stigmatic in nature, therefore, regular departmental enquiry ought to have been held by respondents."

The Court further held that the impugned order was not only stigmatic but also non-speaking and unreasoned. Referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh, Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that administrative and quasi-judicial orders affecting rights must contain reasons and demonstrate application of mind.

The Bench observed that: "The affected party must know how his case or defence was considered before passing the prejudicial order."

After examining the nature of the termination order and the procedure adopted by the authorities, the Court concluded that the action had been taken in violation of settled legal principles governing stigmatic termination and departmental proceedings.

The Court observed: "It is evident that no charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and no regular departmental enquiry was conducted. The impugned order, being stigmatic, non-speaking, and unreasoned, has been passed without following due process."

Conclusion

Holding that the impugned termination order was stigmatic in nature and had been passed without a regular departmental inquiry, without adequate opportunity of hearing and without following due process, the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the termination order.

The Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner's services while granting liberty to the respondent-State to take appropriate action against him in accordance with law, if so advised.

Cause Title: Self Manoj Singh Raghuwanshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:17240)

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: