A stigmatic termination of contractual service without departmental inquiry violates natural justice.

The petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis as a Feeding Demonstrator. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ashok Nagar, terminated her services by order dated 3 January 2019, alleging unauthorised absence from duty, repeated negligence, failure to perform duties, and non-submission of online forms. The order relied on the Samvida Manav Sansadhan Manual, 2017, under which contractual service could be treated as terminated for unauthorised absence exceeding one month.

The petitioner challenged the termination under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the order was stigmatic, non-speaking, and passed without a show-cause notice, hearing, or departmental enquiry. She also sought salary arrears, including maternity-leave salary, and reinstatement. The State defended the order on the ground that the petitioner was a contractual employee whose services could be terminated without prior hearing and that she had remained unauthorisedly absent.

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner’s contractual service, based on allegations of unauthorised absence, negligence, and misconduct, was stigmatic and could validly be effected without a charge-sheet, departmental enquiry, and reasonable opportunity of hearing?

2. Whether the impugned termination order was legally sustainable despite being non-speaking and unreasoned?

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement, subject to the respondents’ liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and applied the principles of natural justice to contractual public employment. It held that although a contractual or temporary employee may ordinarily be terminated through a simpliciter order in accordance with the contract, a termination founded on allegations amounting to misconduct and casting stigma cannot be sustained without a proper enquiry and reasonable opportunity of defence.

Relying 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., the Court reaffirmed that a stigmatic termination requires compliance with natural justice and departmental procedure. The Court further applied Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300, on reasonable opportunity, and State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 724, Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, and Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427, for the rule that administrative orders affecting rights must contain cogent reasons and cannot be arbitrary or self-justifying.

The termination order did not merely bring the contractual engagement to an end; it expressly attributed unauthorised absence, repeated negligence, dereliction of duty, and misleading the High Court and Government to the petitioner. These findings directly affected her conduct and future employment prospects and therefore rendered the order stigmatic. Since no charge-sheet was issued, no regular departmental enquiry was conducted, and no effective opportunity of hearing was provided, the respondents could not rely solely on the petitioner’s contractual status or the Samvida Manav Sansadhan Manual, 2017.

The order was also found to be non-speaking and unreasoned, contrary to the requirement that an administrative decision affecting rights must disclose the reasons supporting it. Consequently, the procedural safeguards applicable to stigmatic termination were not satisfied.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.

The State was, however, granted liberty to take appropriate action against her afresh in accordance with law, if so advised.