### Contractual Employee's Termination Based on Conduct Allegations Without Supplying Inquiry Report Violates Natural Justice principles.

The petitioner, a Medical Officer, was appointed on a contractual basis in 2016.

The petitioner alleged harassment by a Block Medical Officer (BMO) after a security dispute, leading him to file police complaints in January 2020.

Following a complaint by the BMO (Dr. H.V. Sharma) alleging assault (marpeet), the Regional Director of Health Services initiated an inquiry.

Although the petitioner’s statement was recorded, he was never served with the inquiry report or the original complaint.

On 14.01.2021, the respondent issued an order dispensing with the petitioner’s services based on the inquiry findings and alleged non-disclosure of a prior criminal case (Vyapam scandal).

The petitioner challenged this termination as a violation of natural justice.

Whether the termination of a contractual employee's services based on an adverse inquiry report without supplying said report or providing an opportunity for explanation violates the principles of natural justice.

Whether the impugned termination order dated 14.01.2021 is a non-speaking and unsustainable order under the law.

The court primarily applied the Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), holding that even contractual employees are entitled to basic procedural fairness when termination is stigmatic or based on an inquiry.

It applied the rule that an inquiry report must be furnished to the delinquent employee to allow for an explanation before a final decision is made.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the requirement for administrative orders to be "speaking orders," containing clear reasons and references to findings of fact.

The court found that while the petitioner was a contractual employee with no lien on the post, the termination was not a simple discharge but was based on specific allegations of misconduct (assault) and suppression of facts.

The record confirmed that after recording the petitioner's statement, the respondents failed to supply the inquiry report or the underlying material (such as Dr. Sharma’s complaint) to the petitioner, thereby denying him the chance to rebut the findings.

The court noted that the inquiry report had also considered the petitioner’s alleged criminal history without giving him a chance to respond.

Additionally, the court observed that the impugned order was "non-speaking" as it merely cited the HR Manual and internal correspondence without detailing the reasons or specific findings that justified the termination.

The court set aside the termination order.

However, due to the serious nature of the allegations, the court declined to order immediate reinstatement; instead, it remitted the matter back to Respondent No. 4 to take fresh action.

The respondents were directed to provide the petitioner with the inquiry report and related materials, obtain his explanation, and pass a fresh order within 90 days.

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.