Termination Based on Stigmatic Allegations Without Regular Departmental Inquiry is Legally Impermissible and Void.

The petitioner, an Anganwadi Worker appointed on January 15, 2000, with 25 years of service, was terminated via an order dated November 24, 2025

The termination followed a show-cause notice sent via mobile phone, which the petitioner failed to see due to lack of internet facility

The termination order (Annexure P/2) cited specific misconduct, including failure to update the "Poshan App," non-distribution of "THR," and negligence in government schemes like Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana

No regular departmental inquiry was conducted prior to dismissal. An appeal against this order was rejected on June 18, 2026

The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging they were stigmatic and passed in violation of natural justice

1. Whether the termination order dated November 24, 2025, is stigmatic in nature, thereby requiring a regular departmental inquiry before its issuance?

2. Whether the state is empowered to terminate the services of a contingency-paid or scheme-based employee without following the principles of natural justice when the order casts a stigma on the employee's future prospects?

The court applied the principle that a "stigmatic" termination order—one founded on allegations of misconduct or dereliction of duty—cannot be passed without a regular departmental inquiry, as it adversely affects future employment prospects

Reliance was placed on the Division Bench rulings in Rahul Tripathi v. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission (2001) and Malkhan Singh Malviya v. State of M.P. (2018), which mandate an inquiry for stigmatic dismissals

The court also invoked the Supreme Court's summary of "reasonable opportunity" from Khem Chand v. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 300), requiring the right to deny guilt, cross-examine witnesses, and represent against proposed punishment

Furthermore, the court cited the State Government Policy dated July 10, 2007, which specifically prohibits the discontinuation of Anganwadi Workers without a proper inquiry and opportunity of hearing

The court observed that the language of the impugned order dated November 24, 2025, explicitly listed failures in duty and negligence, characterizing it as a "stigmatic" order rather than a termination simpliciter

The court reasoned that even for temporary or scheme-based employees, if termination is founded on acts of commission or omission amounting to misconduct, the principles of natural justice and a formal inquiry are mandatory requirements of law

By examining the record, the court found that no charge-sheet was issued and no participation of the petitioner was sought in any fact-finding process

Consequently, the court determined that the respondents bypassed the mandatory procedural safeguards established by both judicial precedent and the State’s own 2007 policy

It quashed the termination order dated November 24, 2025, and the appellate order dated June 18, 2026. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits, though back wages were denied on the principle of "no work no pay". The Court granted the State liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the law if deemed necessary