Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Termination Of Differently Abled Court Employee, Orders Reinstatement

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the termination of a differently abled woman employed as a peon in the district judiciary, holding that her removal from service without a proper departmental inquiry and without granting her an opportunity of hearing was legally unsustainable. The court found that the allegation that she had suppressed her educational qualifications was incorrect as the application form did not require disclosure beyond the eighth standard.

A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal allowed the writ petition filed by Manju Chandel challenging the order dated June 10/13, 2016 by which she was removed from service. The Court directed that she be reinstated with all consequential benefits, though it clarified that she would not be entitled to back wages.

The petitioner, a person with disability, had been appointed in the respondent department against a post reserved for handicapped persons as a peon on a contingency-paid basis at Collector rate. According to the record, she later sought permission to acquire higher educational qualifications and submitted an application dated May 11, 2015.

Subsequently, a charge-sheet dated January 18, 2016 was issued alleging that she had suppressed her higher educational qualification while filling the application form at the time of appointment. The allegation was that she had passed the 10+2 examination but had not disclosed it because the minimum qualification required for the post was eighth pass.

In response, the petitioner submitted that the allegation was misconceived because the application form itself contained one column requiring disclosure relating to Class VIII. She argued that there was no column requiring disclosure of qualifications such as Class X or Class XII and therefore she had bona fide filled the details asked in the form.

Examining the application form placed on record, the High court found substance in the petitioner’s contention. The bench noted that the form contained a column for the name of the school, year, marks and result pertaining to Class VIII. In such circumstances, the court held that the allegation of suppression of higher qualification could not be sustained.

The court observed that “it is correct that there was one column to disclose the name of the school, year, marks and result of class VIII. Therefore, the allegation is incorrect that she suppressed her higher qualification.”

Apart from the allegation regarding educational qualification, the respondents attempted to justify the termination on the ground that the petitioner’s work and punctuality were unsatisfactory. However, the bench noted that the material relied upon consisted of a single communication written by the 7th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur.

The court noted that even in that communication, the officer had appreciated the petitioner’s conduct and behaviour while expecting improvement in punctuality and work performance. Despite this, the letter became the basis for the Administrative Committee not recommending her continuation in service.

Importantly, the bench pointed out that although a charge-sheet had been issued, the departmental inquiry was never completed. During the pendency of the inquiry, the said communication was relied upon to terminate her services.

The High court held that such action could not be sustained in law. It noted that the charge-sheet alleged suppression of educational qualification, whereas the termination order relied on alleged deficiencies in work and punctuality, thereby changing the basis of the action taken against the employee.

The court emphasized that the impugned order carried a stigma and had been passed without granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Observing that “the impugned order is stigmatic, and no opportunity of hearing was given to her before passing the same,” the court concluded that the termination could not stand judicial scrutiny.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the termination order was set aside. The court directed the authorities to take the petitioner back into service with consequential benefits, though she would not be entitled to back wages. No order as to costs was passed also.

Case Title: Smt. Manju Chandel v. District and Session Judge and Others

Date of Order: March 6, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal