Termination of a regular government employee without disciplinary enquiry or show-cause notice violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner was originally appointed as a Driver on a daily wage basis in 1994 and was subsequently regularized by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon, via an order dated 23.10.2017.

He continued in service as a regular employee for approximately eight years until 09.03.2026, when his services were discontinued via an impugned termination letter (Annexure P-1).

The petitioner challenged this order on the grounds that it was issued without conducting a departmental enquiry or serving a show-cause notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

During proceedings, the State counsel telephonically confirmed that no show-cause notice was issued prior to the termination.

1. Whether the discontinuation of a regularized government servant without conducting a formal enquiry or providing a show-cause notice is legally sustainable under service jurisprudence?

2. Whether the termination of the petitioner’s services violated the statutory procedure prescribed for major penalties under the relevant Civil Services Rules?

The Court primarily applied the principles of natural justice and the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

Specifically, it noted that Rule 10 categorizes termination/dismissal as a major penalty, and Rule 14 mandates a detailed enquiry procedure before such a penalty can be imposed.

The Court further relied on the precedent established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar vs. GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghurdauri and Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 541), which held that terminating a regular employee without a disciplinary enquiry is unjustified, dehors the law, and in gross violation of natural justice.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s status as a regular employee was undisputed, as the regularization order of 2017 was explicitly mentioned in the termination letter itself.

It reasoned that a permanent government employee can only be removed by following the due process of law, unless the appointment was obtained through fraud (which was not alleged here).

The Court found that because termination constitutes a major penalty under the Rules of 1966, the respondents were legally bound to follow the enquiry procedure under Rule 14.

Since the State admitted that no notice or enquiry preceded the order dated 09.03.2026, the Court determined the action was a per se violation of natural justice and statutory requirements.

Applying the ratio of Sandeep Kumar, the Court held that the summary discontinuation of service without an opportunity to be heard could not be sustained.

The Court held that the discontinuation was unsustainable for lack of due process and violation of natural justice.

The Court granted the respondent-authorities liberty to initiate fresh action against the petitioner, provided they follow the due process of law.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.