Stigmatic termination of a contractual employee without a regular departmental enquiry is legally unsustainable.

The applicant bank filed this review petition seeking to recall/modify the order dated 07.01.2026 passed in W.P. No. 323/2017

In the original writ petition, the Court quashed the termination order dated 23.11.2016 issued against the respondent, a contractual employee

The respondent’s services were terminated following a Lokayukta raid and allegations of acquiring illegal assets, after a notice was issued and a hearing was held before the Staff Up-Samiti

The applicant contended that since the respondent was a contractual employee, no formal departmental inquiry was required, whereas the respondent argued that the termination was "stigmatic" and thus required a full inquiry

1. Whether the termination order dated 23.11.2013 was stigmatic in nature, thereby necessitating a regular departmental inquiry despite the contractual nature of the service.

2. Whether there exists any error apparent on the face of the record to justify the exercise of review jurisdiction.

if a termination order is "stigmatic"—meaning it casts a blemish on the employee's character or future prospects—it cannot be passed without a regular departmental inquiry, regardless of whether the employee is temporary, on probation, or contractual

The Court relied on Rahul Tripathi v. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission (2001) and Malkhan Singh Malviya v. State of M.P. (2018) to establish that "reasonable opportunity" includes the right to cross-examine witnesses and establish innocence

The scope of review was governed by Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (2008), which stipulate that review is only maintainable for patent errors or discovery of new evidence, and cannot be used as an "appeal in disguise"

The Court examined the termination order and noted it explicitly mentioned "unethical means," "misuse of post," and "illegal acquisition of property" based on a Lokayukta report

Applying the aforementioned rules, the Court determined this language was clearly stigmatic

The Court reasoned that simply providing a hearing before a committee did not satisfy the requirement of a "regular departmental inquiry" where charges are proved through evidence and cross-examination

It distinguished the applicant's cited precedents by observing that the law is now well-settled: even contractual services cannot be terminated via stigmatic orders without a formal inquiry

Finally, the Court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any "error apparent on the face of the record" as defined in Kamlesh Verma, noting that an erroneous view of law is not a ground for review

Finding no manifest error or miscarriage of justice in the initial judgment, the Court concluded that the review petition lacked merit. The petition was dismissed, and the previous order quashing the termination was upheld.