Termination orders in summary proceedings must be speaking orders addressing specific defenses raised by the employee.

The Petitioner, a Gram Rozgar Sahayak on a contractual basis in Gram Panchayat Pipriyakala, challenged the order dated 14.01.2022 passed by the Collector, Guna, terminating his services, and the appellate order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division.

The termination followed a complaint on the CPGRAMS portal regarding fraudulent wage payments, leading to an inquiry report finding him prima facie guilty of issuing job cards in excess of the voter list and duplicating cards for laborers who had completed 100 days of work.

The Petitioner submitted a reply justifying his actions as necessary to prevent laborer migration during the COVID-19 pandemic and asserting that such duplication was not prohibited.

The Respondents contended that as a contractual employee, a regular inquiry was unnecessary and that an alternative remedy was available.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy under the circular dated 21.01.2021.

2. Whether the expiry of a contractual term renders a challenge to a stigmatic termination infructuous.

3. Whether the summary termination of a contractual employee is valid if the competent authority fails to consider the specific defense raised in the employee’s reply.

The Court held that for contractual employees (Gram Rozgar Sahayak), while a full departmental inquiry is not mandatory, the competent authority in summary proceedings is obligated to deal with the specific defense raised by the employee.

The Court maintained that if a termination is "stigmatic" in nature, it must adhere to the principles of natural justice regardless of the contractual status or the expiry of the term.

The Court applied the principle that an order failing to assign reasons for rejecting a defense is a "non-speaking order" and is unsustainable in law.

The Court first overruled the preliminary objections, noting that the petition’s pendency since 2023 made relegating the Petitioner to an alternative remedy unreasonable.

Regarding the merits, the Court found that the Petitioner had raised a specific defense: that government instructions did not prohibit issuing new job cards to the same laborers after 100 days of work.

The Collector’s termination order was found to be "non-speaking" because it merely labeled the Petitioner's reply "unsatisfactory" without addressing the substance of this defense.

Similarly, the appellate authority failed to determine whether the Petitioner’s acts actually violated any specific prohibitory rule.

The Court reasoned that if the act was not prohibited, it could not be deemed misconduct; thus, the authorities' failure to evaluate the Petitioner's defense constituted a violation of natural justice.

The matter was remitted to the Collector, Guna (Respondent No. 3), for fresh consideration with directions to afford the Petitioner a personal hearing and to pass a reasoned order specifically addressing the defense raised.

The Court ordered that the Petitioner's reinstatement shall remain in abeyance until the fresh order is passed.