Non-renewal cannot be sustained on new misconduct allegations without an effective opportunity to respond.

The petitioner was engaged by the M.P. State Rural Livelihoods Project and served as District Project Manager, including at Singrauli.

On 31 March 2022, the competent authority declined to extend his contractual engagement, citing “non-requirement”; a consequential order transferred charge of the post to a private respondent.

The petitioner challenged those orders and, after an earlier writ petition was disposed of with liberty to appeal, challenged the appellate authority’s dismissal of his appeal on 28 December 2022.

He argued that the appellate order relied on alleged irregularities and misconduct that had not been disclosed to him or put to him for response.

The respondents maintained that renewal was not a vested right and that the non-renewal was contractual.

1. Whether the non-renewal and consequential orders could be sustained where the appellate authority relied on allegations materially different from the reason stated in the original order, without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity to answer them.

2. Whether the impugned orders required reconsideration by the competent authority in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of an effective and meaningful opportunity to respond when a decision is sought to be sustained on adverse allegations.

Where an appellate authority relies on grounds materially different from those stated in the original decision, and those grounds involve allegations against the affected person, that person must be given an opportunity to meet them.

The original order stated that the petitioner’s contract was not being renewed because his services were not required, whereas the appellate order also relied on alleged irregularities and misconduct.

Because those allegations were materially different and, according to the petitioner, had not been communicated to him, the Court found that he should have been afforded an effective opportunity to answer them.

It therefore held that the matter required fresh consideration, without determining whether the petitioner was entitled to renewal or expressing any view on the merits.

Respondent No. 3 was directed to consider the relevant aspects, hear the petitioner, and pass a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

The petition was allowed, with no opinion expressed on the merits.