Stigmatic termination of a daily wage employee without departmental inquiry violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner was appointed as a daily wage employee on a contractual basis by the Nagar Panchayat, Prithvipur, on 10.03.2016 at a monthly honorarium of Rs. 4,000/-

During his tenure, he was assigned charges at the Durgua Filter Plant and Jagni Nandi

On 05.10.2021, Respondent No. 4 issued an order abruptly terminating the petitioner’s services on the grounds of alleged "irregularities and illegalities" committed during his tenure

The petitioner challenged the legality of this order under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending it was stigmatic and passed without an opportunity for a hearing

The respondents argued that as a temporary employee, the petitioner had no vested right to the post and that his performance was unsatisfactory

Whether the services of a daily wage/contractual employee can be terminated on the grounds of misconduct/irregularities without conducting a proper departmental inquiry or adhering to the principles of natural justice

The court applied the principles of audi alteram partem (right to be heard) enshrined under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India

Malkhan Singh Malviya v. State of M.P. (W.A. No. 1166/2017), which dictates that if a termination order is punitive or stigmatic—rather than a mere cessation of need—a formal inquiry is mandatory even for temporary employees

Regarding financial relief, the court applied the principle of equity, noting that in the absence of specific pleadings regarding non-gainful employment, full back wages are not automatically warranted

The court found that the petitioner’s termination was not a "simpliciter" termination due to the end of a contract, but was specifically "founded" on allegations of misconduct

The respondents failed to produce any show-cause notice, charge sheet, or inquiry report to substantiate their claim that a hearing was provided

By terminating the petitioner "behind his back" based on a finding of guilt for alleged irregularities, the order became stigmatic

The court noted that when allegations of misconduct form the foundation of the termination (rather than a mere motive), the absence of a departmental inquiry renders the action inherently arbitrary and legally unsustainable

The court held that the termination was illegal for violating the principles of natural justice

The court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith, granting him 25% back wages for the period out of service. Liberty was granted to the respondents to initiate a full-fledged departmental inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the law

The entire exercise of reinstatement and payment must be completed within 60 days