A contractual employee cannot be terminated punitively for denied misconduct without a formal enquiry.

The petitioner was appointed on 30 October 2012 as an Executive Assistant in the District Mid-Day Meal Scheme Office, Buxar, on a contractual basis by the District Magistrate, Buxar.

A newspaper photograph published on 30 June 2019 allegedly showed the petitioner consuming alcohol in a vehicle along with two contractors and other persons. An FIR was subsequently registered against him under Section 37(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

The District Programme Officer issued a show-cause notice dated 1 July 2019 requiring the petitioner to explain the allegation within 24 hours.

The petitioner denied consuming alcohol and asserted that the newspaper report was false and motivated by rural politics.

Without conducting any departmental enquiry, the District Magistrate terminated his contractual service on 13 July 2019, holding that alcohol consumption constituted indiscipline and violated the State’s prohibition law.

The police thereafter submitted a final report finding no evidence against the petitioner, and the District Programme Officer confirmed that no replacement had been appointed to the post.

Whether a contractual employee could be terminated on the basis of a disputed allegation of misconduct without a formal departmental enquiry, merely after issuance and consideration of a show-cause notice?

Whether the principles of natural justice required an enquiry where the petitioner specifically denied the factual allegation forming the basis of termination?

Whether the impugned termination order dated 13 July 2019 was legally sustainable?

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of a fair opportunity to contest a factual charge of misconduct.

Relying on Hari Ram Maurya v. Union of India, (2006) 9 SCC 167, the Court held that even a temporary employee cannot be removed on a punitive charge without an enquiry.

Under O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 180, even where a minor penalty is contemplated, the employee must be given an opportunity to submit an explanation; where factual charges are denied, an enquiry is required as a minimum requirement of natural justice.

The alleged conduct was also treated by the respondents as an offence under Section 37(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

The Court further relied upon the broader enquiry requirement reflected in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Workmen, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 97, and Amit Kumar v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 5537 of 2020.

The termination was founded on the allegation that the petitioner had consumed alcohol, thereby committing misconduct and violating the prohibition law.

Since the petitioner expressly denied the allegation, the matter involved a disputed question of fact requiring proof through an enquiry.

The Court found that the respondents relied only on the show-cause notice, the petitioner’s reply, and forwarding communications; no witness examination, evidentiary assessment, or departmental enquiry had been conducted.

Although the petitioner was a contractual employee and no specific disciplinary rules were shown to apply, the absence of service rules did not permit the authorities to dispense with basic procedural fairness.

The termination was therefore punitive in substance, as it was expressly based on the petitioner’s alleged guilt and misconduct, rather than being a simple discharge in accordance with the contract.

The termination order dated 13 July 2019 and the show-cause notice dated 1 July 2019 were set aside and quashed.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits.

However, the respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner afresh in accordance with due process of law.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.