Termination based on allegations of fraud requires compliance with principles of natural justice and prior notice.

The Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk (Assistant Grade-3) at Collectorate rates on 18.08.2015

This appointment followed a State policy for school upgradation, involving a recommendation by the Gram Panchayat Silpuri and approval by the Block Education Officer (BEO) and Respondent No. 2

On 12.05.2016, the respondents issued an impugned order cancelling the Petitioner’s appointment

The State contended the appointment was based on manipulated documents, lacked proper approval from the Deputy Commissioner, and was obtained through fraud

The Petitioner challenged the termination on the grounds that it was a stigmatic order passed without a show-cause notice or an opportunity to be heard

An interim stay was granted on 22.06.2016, allowing the Petitioner to remain in service during the pendency of the litigation

1. Whether the termination of the Petitioner’s service via the impugned order dated 12.05.2016 was legally sustainable given the allegation of fraud and the absence of a prior hearing?

The court applied the 'Principles of Natural Justice,' specifically the audi alteram partem rule, which mandates that no person shall be condemned unheard.

It held that when an administrative order entails "civil consequences" or is "stigmatic" in nature, the service of a duly appointed employee cannot be terminated without the issuance of a show-cause notice and the grant of an opportunity for a hearing

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s appointment was not arbitrary but followed a prescribed process involving a Gram Panchayat resolution and departmental approval

While the State alleged that the appointment was "dehors the rules," "suspicious," and "manipulated," the Court found that such allegations categorized the termination as a "stigmatic order"

Because the order resulted in the loss of employment—a significant civil consequence—the respondents were legally obligated to adhere to the principles of natural justice

The Court noted that the respondents failed to issue any show-cause notice or conduct an inquiry before cancelling the appointment

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the State had not explained what action, if any, was taken against the BEO who allegedly facilitated the "manipulated" appointment, undermining the State's summary dismissal of the Petitioner's rights

Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated 12.05.2016

The petition was allowed, but the Court granted the respondents liberty to take fresh action against the Petitioner in accordance with the law, if so advised