Repeatedly unanswered show-cause notices justify contractual termination without a further disciplinary enquiry.

The petitioner was appointed as a Gram Rozgar Sahayak on a contractual basis in Village Panchayat Barma, Janpad Panchayat Bada Malehra, by order dated 1 February 2012.

His services were terminated by order dated 8 February 2017 on allegations of dereliction of duty, including failure to perform assigned duties and failure to submit muster rolls.

The petitioner contended that the termination was passed without a proper enquiry or adequate opportunity of hearing and that he had supplied the requisite muster rolls.

The respondents maintained that several notices and warnings had been issued, but the petitioner neither submitted replies nor complied with the directions, justifying termination of his contractual engagement.

The petitioner relied on Ajay Kori v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 39193 of 2024, concerning Clause 1.1 of the policy dated 5 October 2023, which contemplated an enquiry before termination where allegations emerged in a preliminary enquiry.

Whether the petitioner’s contractual services could be terminated without conducting a formal departmental enquiry after notices alleging dereliction of duty had been issued.

Whether the impugned termination order violated the principles of natural justice and warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the decision in Ajay Kori required the respondents to conduct an enquiry in the present case.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, under which judicial review may be exercised where administrative action is illegal, arbitrary, or violative of natural justice.

It considered the principle that an enquiry may be required before termination of a Gram Rozgar Sahayak where allegations arising from a preliminary enquiry are disputed, as reflected in Clause 1.1 of the policy dated 5 October 2023 and the decision in Ajay Kori v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

However, the Court held that where repeated show-cause notices remain unanswered, the allegations contained in them may be treated as uncontroverted or admitted, and a further factual enquiry is not required in the circumstances of the case.

The Court also applied the principle that a contractual employee who fails to respond to repeated notices and directions cannot successfully challenge termination on the ground that no further opportunity was provided.

The Court found that the petitioner had been served with several notices concerning non-performance of assigned duties and non-submission of muster rolls, including notices dated 2 November 2016, 30 December 2016, and 3 January 2017.

Despite these notices, the petitioner had not filed a reply to any of them.

His assertion that the muster rolls had subsequently been submitted was unsupported because the documents produced did not identify the receiving office or contain any acknowledgment, and counsel could not explain when or how they had been submitted.

On this basis, the Court treated the allegations as uncontroverted and held that the factual allegations did not require a separate enquiry.

The Court distinguished Ajay Kori, observing that its requirement of an enquiry did not assist a petitioner who had failed to respond to repeated notices and had not disputed the allegations before the authorities.

It rejected the challenge based on breach of natural justice and found that no further enquiry was necessary in the circumstances.

The writ petition was dismissed as meritless, with no order as to costs; no reinstatement, back wages, or other relief was granted.