A stigmatic termination of a daily-rated employee requires departmental inquiry and natural justice.

The petitioner had been working as an Assistant Cook/daily-rated employee at Anand Dham Old Age Home, Morena, since 8 July 2011.

By order dated 14 June 2025, respondent No. 5 terminated her services with effect from 15 June 2025 on the ground that the authorities were not satisfied with her work and required her to obtain a “no-dues” certificate.

The petitioner contended that the order was stigmatic, non-speaking and unreasoned, and had been passed without a show-cause notice, charge-sheet or departmental inquiry.

During the proceedings, the Collector, Morena, recorded that the petitioner’s services could not be terminated without his approval and directed that she be continued in service.

The Deputy Collector thereafter issued a show-cause notice to the management for discontinuing the petitioner without the Collector’s approval.

Whether the termination of a daily-rated employee through an order founded on dissatisfaction with her work, without issuing a charge-sheet or conducting a regular departmental inquiry, was legally sustainable?

Whether the impugned termination order was stigmatic, non-speaking and violative of the principles of natural justice?

Whether the termination was invalid for want of approval from the Collector, Morena, where such approval was required?

A termination order that is founded on allegations of misconduct, dereliction of duty or dissatisfaction with an employee’s work and thereby casts a stigma cannot ordinarily be issued without complying with the principles of natural justice and conducting a regular departmental inquiry.

The reasonable opportunity guaranteed to an employee includes notice of the charges, an opportunity to deny them and present evidence, and an opportunity to respond to the proposed punishment, as explained in Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300.

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; Malkhan Singh Malviya v. State of M.P., ILR (2018) MP 660; and Rajesh Kumar Rathore v. High Court of M.P., to distinguish a permissible innocuous termination from a stigmatic termination requiring inquiry.

It further applied the requirement that administrative orders affecting rights must be reasoned and self-contained, relying on State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 724, and Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496.

Under Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427, reasons absent from the original order cannot be supplied or cured through subsequent proceedings.

The Court found that the impugned order was not a purely innocuous termination simpliciter because it referred to dissatisfaction with the petitioner’s work and was therefore stigmatic, with potential adverse consequences for her future employment.

Since no show-cause notice, charge-sheet or regular departmental inquiry had preceded the termination, the petitioner had been denied a meaningful opportunity to defend herself, contrary to the principles stated in Khem Chand and the other authorities relied upon by the Court.

The order was also non-speaking and unreasoned, as it did not disclose the factual basis for the alleged dissatisfaction; this defect could not be cured by later explanations or orders.

In addition, the Collector’s communication indicated that prior approval was required before terminating the petitioner’s services and that such approval had not been obtained.

The termination was consequently invalid on grounds of violation of natural justice, absence of inquiry, failure to provide reasons and lack of the required approval.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner, but she was denied back wages on the principle of “no work, no pay”.

The State was granted liberty to take fresh action against her in accordance with law, if so advised, including by following the applicable procedure and principles of natural justice.