Stigmatic termination requires a regular departmental inquiry and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

The petitioner, a Panchayat Secretary, was suspended on 19 April 2022 and served with a charge-sheet on 9 May 2022 following a complaint concerning Gram Panchayat Tokra.

He contended that the charge-sheet was not accompanied by witness statements or lists of witnesses and documents, that no witnesses or the petitioner were examined during the inquiry, and that he was denied cross-examination.

The respondents terminated his service on 10 April 2023; the order referred to a show-cause notice dated 17 February 2023, but the petitioner disputed receiving it, and the respondents produced no proof of service.

The Divisional Commissioner dismissed his appeal on 7 June 2024.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings and termination complied with Rule 7 of the Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, including its requirements for an oral inquiry and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

Whether the termination could stand where the petitioner disputed service of the proposed-termination notice and the termination order was stigmatic, but the respondents had not established service or conducted a proper regular departmental inquiry.

Rule 7(6) of the Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 provides for an oral inquiry where required and entitles the charged employee to have evidence heard on allegations not admitted, cross-examine witnesses, give evidence, and produce documentary evidence; an Inquiry Officer refusing to call a witness must record reasons in writing.

The Court applied the principle that a stigmatic termination founded on alleged misconduct requires a proper departmental inquiry and a reasonable opportunity of defence, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to make a representation against the proposed punishment.

Khem Chand v. Union of India

It relied on Rahul Tripathi v. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Jitendra v. State of M.P., and Malkhan Singh Malviya v. State of M.P. for the requirement of an inquiry before a stigmatic termination.

Where service of a notice is specifically disputed, the respondents must produce proof of service.

The record showed that no witnesses were examined, no oral inquiry was held, and the petitioner had no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses; the charges were treated as proved on the basis of prior orders.

The Inquiry Officer also recorded no written reasons for not calling or examining witnesses, contrary to Rule 7(6).

Further, although the termination order relied on a notice dated 17 February 2023, the petitioner specifically denied receiving it and the respondents produced no proof of service.

Because the termination order attributed financial irregularities and other misconduct to the petitioner, it was stigmatic; the absence of a proper inquiry and a fair opportunity to respond rendered it unsustainable.

The appellate authority failed to address these material defects.

It quashed the termination order dated 10 April 2023 and the appellate order dated 7 June 2024, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith.

The respondents were granted liberty to take fresh action in accordance with law and, if the petitioner had been convicted in the criminal case, to take appropriate action concerning his service in accordance with law.

The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.