Termination Order Passed Without Serving Show Cause Notice Upon Employee in Custody Violates Natural Justice

The petitioner, a Panchayat Rojgar Sewika in Begusarai, was terminated from service via an order dated 28.03.2022.

The termination followed a dispute with Respondent No. 7 (Programme Officer), which led to a criminal case (Garhpura P.S. Case No. 25 of 2022).

The petitioner was in judicial custody from 12.03.2022 until 14.07.2022.

During this period of incarceration, the authorities passed the termination order.

Her subsequent appeals and revision petitions were dismissed by the Appellate and Reviewing Authorities in 2023.

The petitioner challenged these orders on the grounds that no show-cause notice was served upon her while in custody, violating the principles of natural justice and departmental rules.

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner’s services was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedures prescribed under Letter No. 196 dated 25.03.2022.

2. Whether an order of punishment passed against an employee in judicial custody without serving notice through jail authorities is legally sustainable.

The Court primarily applied the procedural mandate for departmental proceedings established by Letter No. 196 dated 25.03.2022 issued by the Bihar Rural Development Society (BRDS), Government of Bihar.

Clause 3 of the said letter stipulates that a departmental proceeding must involve the issuance of a show-cause notice and adherence to the principles of natural justice before the imposition of any punishment.

Furthermore, the court relied on the fundamental principle of Audi Alteram Partem, requiring that a person be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves, particularly when the State is the employer.

The Court observed that the petitioner was admittedly in jail from 12.03.2022 to 14.07.2022.

The original termination order was passed on 28.03.2022, during the period of her incarceration.

The Court noted that the State provided no evidence or pleading to prove that the show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner through the jail superintendent, nor was any reply received from the jail.

While the State contended that notice was served on the petitioner’s husband, the Court found this insufficient to satisfy the requirement of personal notice in a disciplinary proceeding where the employee is in custody.

Consequently, the Court found that the Disciplinary Authority failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Letter No. 196, rendering the original order and subsequent appellate/revisional orders void for lack of procedural fairness.

The Court quashed the original order dated 28.03.2022 (Annexure-P/6), the appellate order dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure-P/8), and the revisional order dated 05.12.2023 (Annexure-P/10).

The writ petition was allowed, and the Disciplinary Authority was granted liberty to take a fresh decision after serving a proper show-cause notice to the petitioner, to be completed within 60 days.