Termination of Contractual Employee Based on Stigmatic Allegations of Misconduct Without Departmental Inquiry Is Legally Impermissible

The petitioner was appointed as a Lab Technician on a contractual basis on 31.01.2023

On 10.09.2025, while spraying fertilizers, the drone crashed due to an alleged technical failure, resulting in a loss of approximately Rs. 8,000

The respondents constituted an inquiry committee which found the petitioner guilty of negligence and unprofessional behavior without consulting a mechanical expert

Consequently, the respondent issued an order on 17.10.2025 terminating the petitioner's services and directing recovery of the drone's repair costs from his salary

The petitioner challenged the termination as being punitive and stigmatic, passed without a regular departmental inquiry

1. Whether the termination order dated 17.10.2025 was stigmatic and punitive in nature, necessitating a regular departmental inquiry

2. Whether a contractual employee's services can be terminated on grounds of misconduct without following the principles of natural justice and supplying the inquiry report

if a termination order is founded on allegations of misconduct or is stigmatic, a regular departmental inquiry is mandatory under Article 226 of the Constitution

stigmatic orders entail serious consequences for future prospects and require a full inquiry

The court followed Khem Chand v. Union of India regarding the three-fold requirements of "reasonable opportunity": denial of guilt, defense through cross-examination, and representation against proposed punishment

public orders must be judged by the reasons mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by subsequent affidavits or explanations

The Court observed that while the petitioner was a contractual employee, the termination was not a simple discharge (termination simpliciter) but was expressly based on findings of "negligence," "carelessness," and "unprofessional behavior" recorded by a committee

The Court noted that the inquiry report was never supplied to the petitioner, nor was a show-cause notice issued prior to termination

Applying the Mohinder Singh Gill principle, the Court rejected the respondents' attempt to justify the order through fresh allegations in their reply, holding that the validity of the order must be tested against its own text

The Court reasoned that since the order imputed misconduct and directed financial recovery, it was punitive and would adversely affect the petitioner’s future employment prospects

Referring to S.D. Bind v. Union of India, the Court noted that an isolated incident of a drone crash might constitute negligence but not necessarily "misconduct" justifying termination without due process

The Court allowed the petition, quashed the termination order dated 17.10.2025, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner