MP High Court Quashes 'Stigmatic' Termination Of Govt Pleader, Says Due Process Not Followed

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the termination order of Additional Government Pleader/ Advocate from the District Court of Shivpuri, observing that neither a regular departmental inquiry was conducted nor any chargesheet was issued, and only a termination order was passed, which was stigmatic, cryptic, non-speaking and unreasoned. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 221]The bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat observed:"In light of the aforesaid discussion, 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". The dispute arose while he was prosecuting for State in a criminal case and failed to include the name of one of the eyewitnesses. Subsequently, the Trial Court directed the State counsel to verify why the said eye witness was not being summoned. The case was taken up again, after the omission surfaced, and the court was informed that the said witness was not included in the list of witnesses. Later, the court examined the said witness, but also directed the Principal Secretary of the Law and Legislative Affairs Department to examine the petitioner's conduct. The issue for consideration was whether the petitioner had deliberately withheld the eyewitness or it was a mere act of negligence. He was issued a show cause notice, following which an inquiry report was prepared by the Secretary of the Law Department. However, it was observed that the fact-finding inquiry report was prepared without affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, another show cause notice was issued. The petitioner submitted his reply specifying the corrective steps that were taken once the omission was noticed. In his reply, he claimed that it was purely due to inadvertence and was a case of mere oversight. The court took notice of the fact that the initial inquiry report prepared by the Secretary of the Law Department was without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The bench also noted that after the petitioner's second reply, there was no action taken for more than 3 years, and then, without issuing any further notice or opportunity of hearing, his services were terminated by "sigmatic, non-speaking and unreasoned order".The bench further noted that no regular departmental inquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order. The bench relied on settle principle of law, reiterating that only after a regular departmental inquiry, a stigmatic termination order can be passed. The bench emphasized that the termination order was based on the fact-finding inquiry report, which itself suffered as the petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The bench also noted that since the termination order was stigmatic, there ought to have been a departmental inquiry.Thus, the bench set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement of the petitioner.Case Title: Manoj Singh Raghuwanshi v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP. No. 12292 of 2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 221For Petitioner: Advocate Soumya PawaiyaFor State: Government Advocate Monika MishraClick here to read/download the Order

MP High Court Quashes 'Stigmatic' Termination Of Govt Pleader, Says Due Process Not Followed

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

MP High Court Quashes 'Stigmatic' Termination Of Govt Pleader, Says Due Process Not Followed

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers