An employee in judicial custody must be personally served before termination for failure to reply.

The petitioner was engaged as a Gram Panchayat Veterinary Assistant.

After an FIR under the NDPS Act was registered against him and he was taken into custody, the Department issued a show-cause notice proposing termination of his services.

The notice was served on his father, although the Department knew that the petitioner was in custody.

The Department terminated his services on 13 February 2025, noting that no reply had been received.

The petitioner was released on bail on 12 March 2025 and submitted a reply on 19 March 2025.

He challenged the termination, including by seeking to set aside clause 8(ii) of the relevant notification.

Whether the Department’s service of the show-cause notice on the petitioner’s father, rather than on the petitioner in custody, afforded him a proper opportunity to be heard before termination.

Whether the termination order could stand where the petitioner had not personally received the notice and had no opportunity to respond before the order was made.

Under the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution, an administrative order having civil consequences must follow a just, fair, and reasonable procedure, including a reasonable opportunity for the affected person to present their case.

In D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries, (1993) 3 SCC 259, the Supreme Court held that a person’s rights cannot be adversely affected without notice of the case and an opportunity to answer it; these requirements apply to administrative as well as quasi-judicial action.

The respondents relied on clauses 8(ii) and (iii) of the notification dated 19 September 2017 as authority for termination, but the Court did not determine their substantive application.

The petitioner remained in custody when the notice was issued and when the termination order was made.

Because the Department knew his whereabouts, it should have served the notice on him through the Jail Authorities, rather than relying on service on his father.

The finding that the petitioner had failed to respond was therefore unsustainable.

His later reply, submitted after his release, did not cure the failure to provide a proper opportunity before termination.

The authorities were directed to allow the petitioner to rejoin the post he held when his services were terminated.

The quashing was on procedural grounds and did not prevent the Department from proceeding against him again in accordance with law.