A stigmatic termination cannot stand without a regular departmental inquiry.

The petitioner, appointed as a Gram Rojgar Sahayak in 2010, received a show-cause notice on 3 January 2024 and submitted a reply on 5 January 2024.

By order dated 20 February 2024, the respondents terminated his contractual service, citing alleged administrative and financial irregularities, disobedience of directions, incorrect geotagging and delay in processing wages.

The petitioner’s first appeal and second appeal/revision were dismissed on 6 January 2025 and 16 January 2026, respectively.

He challenged all three orders under Article 226, contending that the termination was stigmatic and imposed without a regular departmental enquiry.

1. Whether the petitioner’s termination, which recorded allegations of misconduct and irregularities, was stigmatic and could lawfully be imposed without a regular departmental enquiry.

2. Whether the termination and the orders dismissing the petitioner’s appeals were liable to be set aside for failing to properly consider his defence and provide reasoned decisions.

Under Article 226, the High Court may intervene where a stigmatic termination is imposed in breach of natural justice.

A termination founded on alleged misconduct, rather than an innocuous discharge, ordinarily requires a proper enquiry and a reasonable opportunity to answer the charges; the principles of reasonable opportunity discussed in Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300, include notice of the charges, an opportunity to defend against them, and an opportunity to address the proposed punishment.

The Court relied on Rahul Tripathi v. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, 2001 (3) MPLJ 616, Jitendra v. State of M.P., 2008 (4) MPLJ 670, and Malkhan Singh Malviya v. State of M.P., ILR (2018) MP 660, for the principle that a stigmatic termination affecting future prospects requires an enquiry.

It also applied the requirement that administrative and quasi-judicial decisions affecting rights disclose cogent reasons, relying on State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 724, and Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496.

The Court further referred to paragraph 6 of the guidelines dated 24 June 2025, which provides for enquiry and a reasonable opportunity in disciplinary proceedings concerning Gram Rojgar Sahayaks.

The termination order set out allegations of disobedience, incorrect geotagging, financial irregularity and delay in wage processing, making it stigmatic rather than a simple discharge.

Although the petitioner had received a show-cause notice and submitted a reply, the Court found that no regular departmental enquiry had been conducted and that the reply had not been properly considered.

In light of the cited authorities and the applicable procedural requirements, the Court held that the termination could not stand without an enquiry and adequate consideration of the petitioner’s defence.

It also found the appellate order non-speaking and concluded that the termination and appellate decisions were unsustainable.

The Court set aside the termination order dated 20 February 2024 and quashed the first and second appellate orders dated 6 January 2025 and 16 January 2026.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with consequential benefits, but without back wages, applying the principle of “no work, no pay.”

The respondents were granted liberty to take fresh action in accordance with law.