Stigmatic discontinuance of an outsourced employee requires due process and reasoned consideration of the defence.

The petitioner had been deployed by National Informatics Centre Services Incorporated (NICSI) and worked as an Assistant Programmer in the Samagra Shiksha office for nearly 14 years

Following a show-cause notice and the petitioner’s reply, the Collector made a recommendation recording findings concerning alleged financial irregularities.

By order dated 8 September 2026, the petitioner was sent back to NICSI, referring to that recommendation

The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that it was stigmatic, non-speaking, and made without due consideration of his defence. The respondents maintained that he was an outsourced employee and that the action followed consideration of his reply

The Court found that the Collector had not recommended his removal, but the impugned order relied on the recommendation’s findings; it also did not address the petitioner’s explanation

Whether sending the petitioner back to NICSI, when the order relied on findings concerning alleged irregularities, amounted to a stigmatic action requiring due process and an effective opportunity of hearing

Whether the impugned order was legally unsustainable because it did not disclose consideration of the petitioner’s reply or provide reasons for the decision

A stigmatic termination or discontinuance cannot be imposed even on a contractual or outsourced employee without following the principles of natural justice and affording a due opportunity of hearing; the nature and effect of the action, rather than the employee’s mode of engagement alone, are relevant

The Court relied on Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139, and Digambar Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 4969 of 2015, decided 22 August 2024, on procedural fairness in stigmatic orders

It also applied East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao, (2010) 7 SCC 678, which requires public authorities’ orders to demonstrate application of mind, ordinarily through reasons, and Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785, which recognises reason-giving as an essential feature of justice

Although the petitioner was deployed through NICSI, the Court held that the impugned action could not be treated as a mere administrative return to the deploying agency because it referred to findings of alleged financial irregularities, thereby casting stigma on him

The authority neither recorded an independent finding after considering the petitioner’s defence nor explained why his reply was unacceptable. The absence of reasons and demonstrated application of mind made the order non-speaking and arbitrary, and the process therefore failed the requirements governing stigmatic action

The writ petition was allowed to that extent, with liberty reserved to the respondents to pass an appropriate fresh order in accordance with law and after affording the petitioner due opportunity of hearing