Stigmatic termination based on disputed allegations without departmental enquiry violates natural justice.

The petitioner was serving as an Anganwadi Karyakarta.

Following a complaint alleging misuse of Take Home Ration, 59 packets of food grains belonging to the Anganwadi Centre were allegedly found in the possession of a third person.

The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice on 6 April 2016, to which she replied on the same day denying the allegations.

Without conducting a disciplinary enquiry, the respondent authority terminated her services by order dated 7 April 2016.

The petitioner challenged the termination before the Collector and Commissioner, but the subsequent orders were also adverse to her.

An FIR was registered concerning the alleged misuse of the ration packets.

During the criminal trial, the petitioner and the third person were acquitted by judgment dated 7 June 2017, principally because the prosecution failed to prove possession and the seizure witnesses turned hostile.

Whether the termination order, being founded on allegations of misconduct and therefore stigmatic in nature, could be passed merely after issuing a show-cause notice and without conducting a disciplinary enquiry when the petitioner had denied the allegations?

Whether the termination order was contrary to the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to examine the legality of the termination order.

It applied the principles of natural justice, holding that where an order of termination is founded on disputed allegations of misconduct and carries a stigma, the employee must be afforded a proper opportunity of hearing through an appropriate disciplinary enquiry before an adverse decision is taken.

A mere show-cause notice is insufficient where the allegations are denied and require determination on evidence.

The Court relied on Rahul Tripathi v. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal, 2001 (3) MPLJ 616, for the principle that a stigmatic termination cannot ordinarily be sustained without conducting a proper enquiry and following natural justice.

The termination order was based on the allegation that ration packets belonging to the Anganwadi Centre had been recovered from a third person and that the petitioner had supplied them.

Although statements and a panchnama had been relied upon by the respondents, the petitioner expressly denied the allegations in her reply.

Consequently, the factual dispute could not lawfully be resolved summarily by the authority merely on the basis of statements recorded behind the petitioner and without testing the evidence in a disciplinary enquiry.

The Court also noted that the prosecution had failed to establish the alleged possession in the criminal trial and that the seizure witnesses had turned hostile.

While the criminal acquittal was not treated as independently determining the service dispute, it reinforced the Court’s conclusion that the allegations required proper evidentiary examination rather than a unilateral administrative finding.

The impugned order, being stigmatic and passed without a regular enquiry despite denial of the allegations, therefore violated natural justice.

The order was accordingly quashed.

The matter was remitted to the authorities to proceed from the stage of receipt of the petitioner’s reply, afford her a proper opportunity of hearing, conduct the necessary enquiry, and thereafter pass an appropriate order if misconduct was established.

The petition was disposed of on these terms.