Employment separation under a simpliciter notice clause is not stigmatic and does not require a prior hearing.

The Appellant, formerly General Manager (Administration) at the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC), challenged an order dated 10.08.2022 that severed his employment relationship

The Appellant filed a Writ Petition (W.P.(C) 13746/2022) alleging that his "termination" was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no hearing was provided

The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on 17.01.2026, leading to this intra-Court appeal

While the severance letter used the word "termination," the Respondent contended it was a "separation" under Clause 17 of the Letter of Employment (LoE), not a punitive removal

1. Whether the severance of the Appellant’s service constituted a "termination-simpliciter" under Clause 17 or a "punitive termination" under Clause 18 of the LoE

2. Whether the principles of natural justice must be followed for a separation of service governed by a contractual "simpliciter" clause in the absence of statutory rules

The Court applied the principles of contract-based employment within public bodies under Article 12 of the Constitution of India

It distinguished between "Termination-Simpliciter," which allows for the lawful end of a contract via notice without casting stigma, and "Stigmatic Termination," which requires a departmental inquiry and adherence to natural justice if based on misconduct

The Court relied on the contractual doctrine that in the absence of statutory rules or service bye-laws, the relationship is strictly governed by the specific terms of the Letter of Employment (LoE)

The Court compared Clause 17 ("Separation") and Clause 18 ("Termination") of the LoE. Clause 17 provides for severance by either party with two months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof, which the Court characterized as a "simpliciter" provision

Conversely, Clause 18 involves termination for specific misconducts like insubordination, dishonesty, or breach of duty, which would necessitate a show-cause notice and defense opportunity to avoid being "stigmatic"

The Court noted that the Respondent expressly invoked Clause 17 in its order, and since the separation was not based on alleged misconduct or material breach, it did not cast any stigma on the Appellant

Consequently, the Court reasoned that the requirement for a hearing was not triggered, as the action was a valid exercise of a contractual "no-fault" separation clause

It further held that in the absence of statutory service rules, the LoE governs the relationship, and judicial interference under Article 226 is impermissible unless the action is proved to be mala fide or arbitrary

The Court upheld the Single Judge's order and dismissed the Appeal

The delay of 19 days in filing the appeal was condoned