JABALPUR, India, April 26 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on March 25:

1 . Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.34156/2024, the present intra court appeal has been filed.

2. Short facts of the case are that the respondents were working since long, however, their services were terminated by the separate orders dated 23.09.2024 mentioning that they were negligent towards their work. The respondents challenged the orders in Writ Petition No.34156/2024, which was allowed by the impugned order dated 07.10.2025.

3. Issue notice.

4. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5 . As short question is involved in the appeal, with the consent of parties arguments heard for the purpose of final disposal.

6. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents were working on different posts in the Municipal Council, Rahatgarh, District Sagar for more than last 10 years as Daily Wage Employees. Their work was not satisfactory and they were negligent as well as disobedient, therefore, show cause notices were issued to them by the Chief Municipal Officer but as there was no improvement and they were habitual to remain absent in service without intimation, they were terminated as per the provisions of section 94 of the M.P. Municipalities Act. He further submits that the respondents were not working sincerely, efficiently and used to come late frequently as well as remain absent, therefore, the Chief Municipal Officer, who is a competent authority, has not committed any error in terminating their services. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in awarding 25% of back wages. He prays for setting aside the order of learned Single Judge.

7. Per contra, Shri Vipul Vardhan Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, submits that the respondents were working in Municipal Council, Rahatgarh since 2010 and without conducting any enquiry or assigning any specific reasons, the services of the respondents were terminated by the impugned orders dated 23.09.2024, which is contrary to the provisions of law. He further submits that the conduct of respondents were neither negligent nor disobedient. They could not be terminated without conducting any enquiry and thus their termination was illegal. He further submits that the termination orders were stigmatic and learned Writ Court has correctly set aside the termination orders.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2025/WA/3296/WA_3296_2025_FinalOrder_25-03-2026_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.