### Termination of contractual services for misconduct without affording specific opportunity of hearing on foundational charges is invalid.

The petitioner was appointed as a contractual Diet Trainer at the Nutrition Rehabilitation Centre (NRC) in 2008 under the National Rural Health Mission.

Following allegations of negligence, she was issued a show-cause notice on 21.04.2025, resulting in a minor penalty and warning on 12.06.2025.

Subsequently, a second show-cause notice was issued on 28.07.2025 regarding unauthorized absence and poor performance.

On 22.12.2025, a third notice was issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO) citing deficiencies found during a physical inspection.

Ultimately, the Mission Director (Respondent No. 2) terminated the petitioner’s services on 01.01.2026, citing misconduct, irregular attendance via mobile screenshots (including attendance marked while she was at a hearing in Bhopal), and negligence.

1. Whether the termination of a contractual employee on grounds of misconduct requires a regular fact-finding inquiry and adherence to the principles of natural justice under the Human Resource Manual.

2. Whether the impugned order was vitiated by the inclusion of new allegations (irregular attendance via screenshots) for which no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner.

Clauses 11.3 and 12.4 of the Contract Human Resource Manual, 2025, which stipulate that the Mission Director may terminate a contract for misconduct provided the employee is given an opportunity for written or oral defense.

The authority must ensure the employee is aware of the specific charges and granted an adequate opportunity to respond, although a full departmental inquiry under the M.P. Civil Services Rules, 1966, is not mandatory for contractual staff.

National Health Mission v. Smt. Richa Saxena (W.A. No. 2541/2024), establishing that compliance with natural justice is essential before passing a stigmatic termination order.

The court observed that while Respondent No. 2 had issued a notice on 28.07.2025 regarding certain lapses, the final termination order dated 01.01.2026 was largely based on "material foundation" for which no notice was ever given.

Specifically, the allegations regarding the manipulation of attendance via the "Sarthak App" using screenshots and findings from the CMHO’s inspection on 22.12.2025 were included in the termination order without allowing the petitioner to submit a defense.

The court reasoned that since these new allegations influenced the decision to terminate, the failure to provide a hearing on these specific points constituted a violation of the procedural requirements of Clause 11.3 and Clause 12.4 of the Manual.

The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 01.01.2026 but denied the petitioner back wages for the period of termination; liberty was granted to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings following due process of law.