### Termination of Contractual Employee Based on Allegations of Misconduct Without Proper Inquiry is Stigmatic and Illegal

The applicant was appointed as a contractual conductor by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) in 2010, with periodic renewals

On June 6, 2022, the respondents issued a show-cause notice alleging that the applicant failed to process contracts between private bus owners and the DTC on time and had demanded bribes from private owners, thereby tarnishing the DTC's image

Following the applicant's reply, the respondents issued an order on September 6, 2022, terminating his contract under Clauses 6 and 14 of the agreement

The applicant challenged this termination as being "stigmatic" and founded on alleged delinquency without a proper inquiry

1. Whether the termination of the applicant's contractual service was an "order simpliciter" (in terms of the contract) or a "stigmatic order" founded on allegations of misconduct

2. Whether the termination order is sustainable in law without a regular disciplinary inquiry into the allegations of bribery and misconduct

a contractual termination, even if purportedly made under contract terms, is legally unsustainable if it is "founded" on serious misconduct/delinquency rather than being a mere "termination simpliciter"

Clause 14 of the relevant contract, which permits termination for "committal of offence/serious misconduct"

stigmatic terminations of contractual employees without due process are invalid, as held in Amar Jeet Singh v. DTC & Ors. (O.A. No. 217/2023), upheld by the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court

The court further referenced the Apex Court's decision in Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (CA No. 9758/2024)

The Tribunal examined the show-cause notice and the termination order, noting that both documents explicitly cited allegations of bribery and failure to perform duties

Although the respondents argued the order was a "termination simpliciter" under Clause 6, the Tribunal observed that the invocation of Clause 14 (which deals with misconduct) and the respondents' own admission in their counter-reply regarding bribery allegations proved that the termination was "founded" on delinquency

Since the respondents treated the allegations as proved without conducting a regular inquiry or obtaining a court conviction for bribery, the order was deemed stigmatic and punitive rather than administrative

The Tribunal followed the ratio in Amar Jeet Singh, noting it squarely covered the present facts

The Tribunal quashed the termination order dated September 6, 2022 and directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant with 50% back wages and all consequential benefits

Compliance was ordered within eight weeks, with the respondents granted liberty to proceed against the applicant in accordance with the law if they choose to conduct a formal inquiry