Punitive service action causing civil consequences requires disciplinary proceedings and adherence to natural justice.

The petitioner was initially engaged as a daily-wage employee in the Indore Municipal Corporation and was subsequently granted the status of Sthai Karmi/permanent employee under the Government policy dated 7 October 2016 and consequential order dated 29 May 2018.

In connection with Legislative Assembly Starred Question No. 607, information was collected from different branches and processed through the administrative hierarchy.

The respondents alleged that Appendix-I contained incorrect information and attributed its preparation to the petitioner.

The petitioner maintained that the discrepancy was a bona fide or typographical mistake and did not involve deliberate misconduct.

By order dated 28 February 2026, the Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Indore, relieved the petitioner from work/attendance and stopped his salary, allegedly without issuing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet or providing an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner challenged the order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and sought quashing of the order, reinstatement, continuity of service and consequential benefits.

He also submitted a representation dated 22 April 2026 seeking reconsideration and restoration of duty.

Whether the respondents could relieve the petitioner from duty/attendance and stop his salary, on the allegation of negligence or indiscipline, without initiating disciplinary proceedings and without affording him an opportunity of hearing.

Whether the impugned order dated 28 February 2026 was administrative in nature or punitive, involving civil and service consequences requiring compliance with natural justice and the applicable service procedure.

Whether the petitioner’s status as a Sthai Karmi permitted the respondents to impose such punitive consequences without following the procedure prescribed by law.

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the applicable statutory service framework governing Municipal Corporation employees, and the Government Circular dated 3 May 2017.

The governing principle was that an order founded on an allegation of negligence, misconduct or indiscipline and producing serious civil or service consequences cannot be sustained without adherence to the principles of natural justice and the disciplinary procedure applicable to the employee.

The Court distinguished a purely administrative arrangement from punitive action and held that relieving an employee from duty and stopping salary constituted adverse consequences requiring procedural fairness.

The Court also relied on Gopal Patona v. State of M.P. & Others, W.P. No. 45470 of 2025, decided on 17 June 2026, where it was held that termination under the Circular dated 3 May 2017 could not be based merely on an FIR or challan without establishing the alleged misconduct in accordance with law.

The Court found that the respondents’ own case was that the petitioner had committed negligence and indiscipline while dealing with important Legislative Assembly information; therefore, the foundation of the impugned action was an allegation of misconduct rather than a routine administrative decision.

Even assuming that the petitioner was responsible for the incorrect information, that allegation required determination through the applicable disciplinary process.

The respondents had not shown that the petitioner was served with a charge, show-cause notice or any meaningful opportunity to explain his position before the punitive consequences were imposed.

Since the order removed him from attendance and stopped his salary, it had serious civil and service consequences and could not be justified as a mere administrative arrangement.

The petitioner’s status as a Sthai Karmi did not authorise arbitrary punitive action or dispense with the basic requirement of fairness.

Accordingly, the order was vitiated by breach of natural justice and failure to follow the prescribed procedure.

It therefore quashed the order and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith, with continuity of service and consequential benefits in accordance with law.

The period during which the petitioner remained out of duty was to be considered for salary and other benefits in accordance with law, and admissible monetary benefits were directed to be released within a reasonable period.

The respondents were, however, granted liberty to initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings concerning the alleged irregularity or negligence, provided that such proceedings were otherwise permissible and conducted strictly in accordance with law after granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of defence.