Termination of a contractual employee via a stigmatic order without a regular departmental enquiry is legally unsustainable.

The petitioner was serving as a Gram Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Rijaudhi, District Shivpuri.

On 10.10.2016, the respondent authority issued an order terminating the petitioner’s services.

The termination was based on an ex parte enquiry report by the District Co-ordinator, which found the petitioner guilty of negligence, arbitrariness, and depriving beneficiaries of government schemes.

The petitioner challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the termination was "stigmatic" and passed without a show-cause notice, an opportunity for a hearing, or a regular departmental enquiry.

An interim stay on the termination was granted on 15.12.2016.

1. Whether an order of termination that casts a stigma on an employee's conduct can be passed without conducting a regular departmental enquiry and adhering to the principles of natural justice.

The court applied the principle that a "stigmatic" termination order—one founded on misconduct or negligence—entails serious consequences for future prospects and necessitates a full departmental enquiry.

It relied on Rahul Tripathi v. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission (2001) and Jitendra v. State of M.P. (2008) regarding the necessity of an inquiry for stigmatic orders.

The court further cited the Apex Court’s decision in Khem Chand v. Union of India (1958), which defines "reasonable opportunity" as the right to deny guilt, cross-examine witnesses, and represent against proposed punishment.

Additionally, it followed Clause 15 and 16 of the MANREGA guidelines concerning the discipline and termination of Gram Rojgar Sahayaks.

The court examined the text of the impugned order dated 10.10.2016 and found it explicitly labeled the petitioner "guilty" of serious negligence and arbitrary conduct.

Because the order was based on specific allegations of "acts of commission or omission" rather than being a simple termination simpliciter, it was classified as stigmatic.

The court reasoned that the respondents failed to issue a charge-sheet or provide a forum for the petitioner to defend himself, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Citing consistent precedents from co-ordinate and division benches, the court held that even for contractual or contingency-paid employees, a formal inquiry is a prerequisite if the termination order damages the individual's character or professional reputation.

The court held that a stigmatic order cannot be sustained without a regular departmental enquiry.

While active reinstatement was unnecessary due to the previous interim stay, the court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner all consequential benefits.

Liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh in accordance with the law if deemed necessary.