[2026:RJ-JP:3524-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 559/2023 Vijay Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Ram Singh Gurjar, Village Beeghawash, Post Hingotiya, Tehsil And District Dausa ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner Cum Secretary (Egs), Rural Development Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Project Director (Egs), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, (Mgnrega), Secretariat, Jaipur 3. The Additional District Programme Coordinator, (Egs) Cum Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dausa 4. The Programme Officer Cum Development Officer (Mgnrega), Panchayati Samiti Dausa ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Divya Rathore, Adv. for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 27/01/2026 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 25.08.2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was selected for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak on a contract basis under the MGNREGA scheme, initially for a period of one year, vide order dated 19.04.2008. This appointment was made in [2026:RJ-JP:3524-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-559/2023] pursuance of a selection process conducted through open market recruitment on a contractual basis. 2.1 The grievance of the appellant is that his services were terminated by order dated 13.12.2011, on the allegation that he had burnt the records of the Panchayat for the years 2008-09 to 2010-11, leading to termination of his contractual employment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to para 4 of the reply filed by the respondent-State, wherein the State has taken a categorical stand that it had the power under clause 6.1 of the contract agreement to terminate the services of the employee due to grave misconduct. Clause 6.1 of the contract agreement reads as follows: “Any misconduct on the part of the first party, if proven, after an enquiry by the second party, shall entitle the second party to terminate the services of the first party.” 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that clause 6.1 of the contract agreement requires the respondents to follow a process of basic enquiry. He further submits that the FIR lodged in the matter culminated in the acquittal of the appellant by order dated 24.02.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State is unable to point out any compliance with clause 6.1 of the contract agreement. She fairly submits that no enquiry was conducted; however, she contends that the offence was grievous and the acquittal was granted on the benefit of doubt. She further submits that it was the prerogative of the respondents to terminate the services of a [2026:RJ-JP:3524-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-559/2023] contractual employee and that a detailed enquiry may not be feasible or required in contractual employment. 5. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, finds that the employment of the appellant was through open market recruitment, after adhering to a regular selection process on a contractual basis, pursuant to which he joined at Gram Panchayat Hingotiya on 22.04.2008. The termination order mentions the reason that records for the years 2008-09 to 2010-11 were burnt. This Court also finds that the acquittal order dated 24.02.2015, passed by the competent court, dealt with the FIR arising from the same allegations as those levelled in the termination order. 6. This Court takes note of the fact that clause 6.1 of the contract agreement provides for an enquiry, which may be basic in nature and not akin to a regular departmental enquiry, but at least some form of fact-finding process is contemplated. 7. In the present set of circumstances, the order impugned in the writ petition does not satisfy the parameters of clause 6.1 of the contract agreement. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.08.2022 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the termination order dated 13.12.2011 is also quashed and set aside. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to conduct the enquiry strictly in accordance with law. The appellant shall not be entitled to any wages/back wages for the period during which he has not discharged duties. However, the respondents shall permit the [2026:RJ-JP:3524-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-559/2023] appellant to join immediately in pursuance of the present order, within a period of one month from today. The appellant shall be treated as continuing on a contractual basis, and any benefits that may arise shall be granted to him notionally. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J Sudheer/Heena/115