Stigmatic termination of contractual teachers for misconduct requires an inquiry and a fair hearing.

The petitioners, Commerce teachers engaged through the Jan Bhagidari Samiti, challenged the order dated 15 September 2025 terminating or disengaging their services.

They contended that the order was based on unverified misconduct allegations raised by the ABVP and publicised in the media, and was made without a hearing or inquiry.

The State submitted that the Samiti had unanimously decided on 30 August 2025 to remove them after discussing conduct it considered adverse to the institution’s dignity and discipline.

Whether the petitioners’ termination or disengagement, based on allegations of misconduct and carrying a stigma, could be made without an inquiry or an opportunity to be heard

Whether the termination order should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration

Under Article 226, the Court may review an impugned service action for compliance with the law and principles of natural justice.

A termination or disengagement that is stigmatic and founded on allegations of misconduct cannot be treated as termination simpliciter; even for temporary, contractual, or honorarium-based engagements, the affected person must receive a fair opportunity to respond, and the allegations must be dealt with through an appropriate inquiry.

The Court relied on Umesh Sharma v. State of M.P. & Ors., W.P. No. 14930/2024 (1 July 2024), which followed Rahul Tripathi v. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal, 2001 (3) M.P.L.J. 616, and referred to Devendra Vishwakarma v. State of M.P. & Ors., W.P. No. 7223/2020; Hukum v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 23408/2018; and Vikram Singh v. Panchayat & Social Justice Department, W.P. No. 21881/2019 (4 April 2022).

The Court found that the impugned order stemmed directly from misconduct allegations made by a student organisation and was therefore stigmatic.

The Samiti’s unanimous decision did not dispense with the requirement to provide the petitioners a fair chance to answer those allegations.

Because the respondents had terminated their services without an inquiry or opportunity to be heard, the action failed to satisfy natural justice and the principles in the cited decisions.

Pending that decision, the petitioners were directed to be permitted to work on contract in their present posts on the same terms and conditions.

The fresh decision was to be made preferably within four months of production of a certified copy of the order.

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