Stigmatic contractual termination cannot stand without considering the employee’s reply and procedural safeguards.

The petitioner was engaged as an Additional Programme Officer on a contractual basis under the “Ek Bagiya Maa Ke Naam” scheme and allied MGNREGS works.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Sidhi terminated his contractual services by order dated 17.12.2025, alleging negligence and unsatisfactory performance.

The petitioner contended that the termination was punitive and stigmatic, was imposed without a proper inquiry or adequate consideration of his explanation, and followed an earlier order dated 16.12.2025 imposing a deduction of two days’ honorarium for substantially the same alleged deficiencies.

The respondents relied on show-cause notices dated 06.11.2025 and 12.12.2025 and a warning dated 11.12.2025, asserting that the petitioner’s performance was poor and that, being a contractual employee, he was not entitled to a full departmental inquiry.

The petitioner’s explanation dated 16.12.2025 referred, inter alia, to portal downtime, pending technical and administrative sanctions, division of duties among several field functionaries, and comparative performance data.

Whether the termination of the petitioner’s contractual services, founded on allegations of negligence and unsatisfactory performance, could be sustained when the competent authority failed to adequately consider his explanation and did not follow the procedural safeguards under the governing policy?

Whether the imposition of a two-day honorarium deduction followed by termination on the very next day, on substantially the same allegations, was legally sustainable?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to pursue the appellate remedy provided under Clause 7.4 of the Rojgar Guarantee Policy dated 24.06.2025, and what directions should follow?

The Court exercised judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied Clauses 7.1 to 7.3 of the Rojgar Guarantee Policy dated 24.06.2025 and the clarification dated 15.10.2025, under which ordinary deficiencies could attract lesser measures such as warning or deduction/stoppage of honorarium, while termination was contemplated for more serious misconduct, including proved embezzlement of public funds, moral turpitude, or gross indiscipline.

The Court held that even in contractual employment, where termination is founded on allegations of misconduct or negligence and is stigmatic rather than a simple discharge upon expiry of the contract, the decision-making process must objectively consider the employee’s reply and comply with applicable procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice.

The Court also recognised the appellate mechanism under Clause 7.4, providing a first appeal to the Collector/District Programme Coordinator and a second appeal to the Commissioner, M.P. Rajya Rojgar Guarantee Parishad.

The respondents’ reliance on Smt. Anita Sant v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 2548/2011, and Santosh Bhanwar v. State of M.P., W.A. No. 1213/2022, concerning limited judicial review in contractual termination matters, was noted.

The Court found that although the petitioner had submitted an explanation on 16.12.2025, the termination order passed on 17.12.2025 did not address his specific defences concerning technical and administrative impediments, portal downtime, distribution of field responsibilities, or comparative performance.

Since the termination was based on alleged negligence and unsatisfactory performance, it was not a mere discharge simpliciter and therefore required an objective evaluation of the petitioner’s reply in accordance with the governing policy.

The Court further noted that a two-day honorarium deduction had already been imposed on 16.12.2025 for operational shortcomings, followed by termination the next day on the same general substratum, reinforcing the conclusion that the authority had not properly applied the policy’s gradation of disciplinary measures.

The failure to consider material defences vitiated the decision-making process, notwithstanding the contractual nature of the petitioner’s engagement.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal before the Collector, Sidhi, under Clause 7.4 of the Rojgar Guarantee Policy, along with relevant documents and performance material, within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The Collector was directed to provide the petitioner a full opportunity of hearing, independently consider the applicability of Clauses 7.1 to 7.3, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within two months of receiving the appeal.

Reinstatement and payment of honorarium or remuneration for the intervening period were left subject to the fresh decision under Clause 7.10 of the Policy.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without an order as to costs.