MP HC Reinstates Gram Rojgar Sahayak Terminated After More Than 48 Hours In Custody Without A Hearing

The petitioner, a contractual Gram Rojgar Sahayak, was detained for more than 48 hours in connection with Crime No. 09/2024 and was later released on bail.

On 26 August 2025, the respondents terminated his services under Clause 6.9 of the circular dated 24 June 2025, without first giving him a show-cause notice or hearing.

He challenged the termination under Article 226, sought reinstatement and also sought a declaration that Clause 6.9(ख) was illegal.

He relied on a coordinate Bench decision concerning Clause 6.9(क), while the State maintained that detention exceeding 48 hours made termination permissible without a hearing.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to review the legality of administrative action.

The principles of natural justice require a reasonable opportunity of hearing before State action that adversely affects a person’s livelihood, including in the case of a contractual employee; contractual status does not, by itself, exclude those protections.

The Court relied on K.C. Joshi for the requirement of an opportunity to controvert allegations before punitive action affecting livelihood, and on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813, for the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

It also relied on the coordinate Bench’s decision of 15 April 2026 in W.P. No. 35882/2025, which held that action under Clause 6.9(क) could not be taken without a hearing.

The petitioner had been terminated without a hearing, and the coordinate Bench had held that a Gram Rojgar Sahayak must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before termination under Clause 6.9.

Applying that reasoning, the Court found the impugned termination unsustainable and quashed it.

The earlier decision concerned Clause 6.9(क), whereas this case involved detention exceeding 48 hours under Clause 6.9(ख); the Court nevertheless applied its natural-justice reasoning to the petitioner’s termination.

It did not separately declare Clause 6.9(ख) illegal in its operative order.

It granted the respondents liberty to take fresh action if the petitioner is convicted in the criminal case.