Acquittal in a criminal case removes the sole basis for non-renewal of a contractual appointment.

The petitioner was appointed as a Testing Assistant on a contract basis in 2013.

On 19.02.2015, a fatal accident involving a Line Helper occurred, leading to the registration of an FIR against the petitioner under Sections 304-II and 201 of the IPC.

Although the petitioner was granted bail, he was unable to resume duties immediately due to medical reasons.

On 15.12.2016, the respondent terminated his services via an order (Annexure P/1) citing "non-recommendation" based on the pending criminal case and Rules governing contractual engagement.

During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was acquitted of all criminal charges by the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 15.03.2022.

The petitioner challenged the termination as arbitrary and lacking an opportunity for a hearing.

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner’s contractual services solely on the ground of a pending criminal case is sustainable following his subsequent acquittal.

2. Whether the impugned termination order, being non-speaking and unreasoned, violates the principles of natural justice and is legally valid.

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice and the requirement for "reasoned orders" as established in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, which holds that reasons are the "heartbeat" of every conclusion.

It further relied on Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, which mandates that the validity of a statutory order must be judged by the reasons mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in subsequent affidavits.

The court applied the doctrine of parity, noting that similarly situated employees continued in service while the petitioner was excluded solely due to litigation.

The court found that the impugned order dated 15.12.2016 was a "non-speaking and unreasoned order" that failed to assign any specific grounds for the "non-recommendation" of the petitioner’s service.

By applying Mohinder Singh Gill, the court rejected the respondents' attempt to justify the termination post-facto via affidavits regarding the criminal case.

The court observed that since the petitioner was acquitted in 2022, the original basis for his removal (the criminal case) no longer existed.

The court noted the respondents' admission that "similarly situated persons" were still working, rendering the petitioner's specific exclusion arbitrary once the criminal cloud was cleared.

The court determined that the failure to afford the petitioner a hearing or provide a reasoned order constituted a total non-application of mind.

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the termination, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits except back wages within three months.