A stigmatic contractual termination requires a regular enquiry and cannot be imposed without one.

The petitioner, formerly a regular Assistant Grade-III who superannuated on 31 January 2025, was re-engaged on a one-year contractual basis and assigned Assistant Property Tax Officer duties.

Following allegations that property records had been altered using his user ID, the respondents issued a show-cause notice and, relying on an enquiry report and electronic audit records, terminated his contractual services on 9 January 2026 under Rule 8 of the 2021 Rules.

The petitioner challenged the termination, contending that it was stigmatic, that the enquiry report and supporting material had not been supplied, and that he had not received an effective opportunity to defend himself.

Whether the termination order, which attributed serious irregularities to the petitioner, was stigmatic and therefore could be passed without a regular enquiry and effective opportunity to be heard.

Whether the termination order was sustainable despite being non-speaking and lacking reasons demonstrating consideration of the petitioner’s explanation.

Under the principles of natural justice, a termination founded on allegations of misconduct and carrying stigma requires an appropriate enquiry and a meaningful opportunity to defend; a merely innocuous termination for unsatisfactory service is distinguishable.

The Court relied on Khem Chand v. Union of India, which describes reasonable opportunity as including notice of the allegations, an opportunity to contest the evidence and present a defence, and an opportunity to address the proposed punishment.

It also applied the principle that prejudicial administrative decisions must give intelligible reasons: State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh and Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan.

Under Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, an order must be judged by the reasons stated in it and cannot be supplemented later by additional reasons.

The contractual engagement was stated to be governed by the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Contract (Agreement and Conditions) Service Rules, 2021.

The termination order recited the allegations, referred to an enquiry report, concluded that the petitioner had committed serious irregularities, and terminated his services on that basis.

The Court treated the order as stigmatic and found that no regular departmental enquiry had been held and no proper opportunity of hearing had been afforded.

It further found the order non-speaking and unreasoned: the requirement to state reasons could not be met by the respondents’ subsequent reliance on enquiry materials, and the order itself did not adequately show how the petitioner’s defence had been considered.

The termination therefore could not stand.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith, if he was otherwise eligible, while granting liberty to take fresh action in accordance with law.

The respondents were also permitted to take appropriate action for termination if the petitioner had been convicted in the criminal case.

The petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.