Adverse CID Report Justifies Contractual Termination but Does Not Forfeit Wages for Periods Actually Worked

The petitioner was engaged as a Senior Resident in General Medicine at GMC, Anantnag, on an academic arrangement basis under S.O. 364 of 2020 for an initial period of one year.

His engagement was provisional, contingent upon a favorable character and antecedents report from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), a condition the petitioner accepted via affidavit.

Although his tenure was set to expire on August 14, 2025, he continued to work until October 30, 2025, when the respondents issued Order No. 630-GMCA of 2025, cancelling his engagement ab initio due to an adverse CID report.

The petitioner challenged the termination as being stigmatic and violative of natural justice, while also seeking payment for unpaid salary from September 2, 2024, to October 30, 2025.

1. Whether the termination of a provisional contractual engagement based on an adverse security report without a formal inquiry is legally sustainable.

2. Whether the respondents can validly withhold wages for the period an employee actually discharged duties, even if the appointment is cancelled ab initio.

Rule 4(2) of S.O. 364 of 2020 regarding the termination of academic arrangements.

The court distinguished the precedent in Dr. Shazia Salam vs. UT of J&K and Ors., noting that periodic extensions create higher procedural protections than a basic provisional appointment.

Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India, establishing that withholding earned wages for work performed constitutes "forced labor" and violates fundamental rights, rendering any contractual waiver of such wages unenforceable.

The court reasoned that since the petitioner’s engagement was purely contractual and provisional, the terms of the engagement order and his own affidavit—which explicitly allowed for ab initio cancellation upon an adverse CID report—governed the relationship.

Because the petitioner accepted these conditions "with open eyes," he could not later demand a regular inquiry or claim a violation of natural justice when the specific contingency (the adverse report) occurred.

The court held that even if a contract stipulates that an appointee cannot claim wages upon termination due to adverse reports, such a clause is "in the teeth of Article 23".

The court emphasized that the state cannot accept the benefit of an individual's labor and then refuse payment based on a subsequent security clearance failure, as this would violate constitutional protections against exploitation.

The court directed the respondents to release the petitioner’s legitimately earned wages for the period he actually worked within two months; failure to comply entitles the petitioner to interest at 6% per annum.