THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.
Shiva Prasad Sarma, S/o. Dhiren Chandra Sarma – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam, Rep. By The Commissioner And Secretary And Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) 1673 of 2017
Decided On : 11-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. notice of termination issued under disputed performance concerns. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. argument about absence of a fair procedure prior to termination. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. allegations of negligence cited in show cause notice. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. analysis of contractual clauses related to termination. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. termination considered punitive requires adherence to procedural safeguards. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. court's decision to quash termination and allow continuation in service. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel, NRHM for Respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the Notice of Termination dated 23.02.2017, issued by the Mission Director, National Health Mission, Assam to the Petitioner invoking Clause-9 of the “Terms of Contract” executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent Authority (District Health Society, HKD).
3. The aforesaid Notice of Termination was issued to the Petitioner wherein it was stated that the Petitioner was issued the show cause notice for not maintaining the Books of Accounts properly at his place of duty and on receipt of a reply from the Petitioner’s end, which was found to be not satisfactory, the instant Notice of Termination was issued to the Petitioner, whereby it has been stated that his services will be terminated one month after the date of issuance of the aforesaid letter.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Notice of Termination, the Petitioner has filed the instant petition before this Court; and vide, the order dated 22.03.2017, this Court in the interim, directed that the impugned letter dated 23.02.2017 issued by the Mission Director, NRHM, Assam to remain suspended until further orders. 5. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was initially appointed as PHC Accountant cum Assistant Block Programme Manager on contractual basis th under the National Rural Health Mission, Assam, vide letter dated 9 March, 2008. Accordingly, the Petitioner joined in Gurimara SD in the Kamrup district and had performed his duties as per the terms of contract. Later on, the Petitioner was appointed as Block Accounts Manager in Tamulpur BPHC in Baksa district on contractual basis, vide letter dated 20.03.2012, issued by the Executive Director, NRHM, Assam and the Deputy Secretary, Health & FW Department, Government of Assam.
6. While he was serving in the aforesaid post, all of a sudden, the Petitioner received a show cause notice dated 01.09.2016 issued by the Mission Director, National Health Mission, Assam whereby, it was alleged that the Petitioner was not maintaining the Books of Accounts properly at his place of duty which was not acceptable under NHM in mission mode. Therefore, he was show caused as to why disciplinary action as per Clause 9 of the Terms of Contract should not be initiated against him for his apparent indiscipline and negligence towards duty. He was asked to reply to the aforesaid show cause notice within a period of 7 (seven) days. On receipt of the aforesaid show cause notice, the Petitioner has submitted a detailed reply, vide his letter dated 07.09.2016 addressed to the Mission Director, National Health Mission, Assam.
7. In the aforesaid reply, the Petitioner has detailed his scope of works as well as the way he has been maintaining the finances in the Office, with details of the registers he has been maintaining to keep records of the financial transactions. However, on 23.02.2017, the Petitioner received the impugned Notice of Termination issued by the Mission Director, National Health Mission, Assam, whereby it was intimated to him that the reply received from his end was not found to be satisfactory and such indiscipline and negligence towards duty are not acceptable under the NHM in mission mode. Therefore, he was intimated that his contract will be terminated as per Clau
Termination of a contractual employee citing indiscipline and negligence without a proper inquiry violates Article 311(2) and the principles of natural justice, rendering the termination invalid.
Termination of contractual employment must adhere to principles of natural justice, especially when allegations of misconduct are involved.
The court affirmed that natural justice principles apply even in contractual employment but can be flexible; proper opportunity must be given, but not always in the traditional sense.
The contract-based employment does not entitle the employee to the protections of Article 311, thus allowing termination based on performance without a full departmental inquiry.
Punitive action should not be taken against an individual without establishing or proving the allegations made against them through a proper enquiry and affording them a reasonable opportunity to def....
The court emphasized the necessity for fair procedures in administrative actions affecting employment rights, quashing the termination due to violations of natural justice.
The termination of services should be made by the appointing authority, and proper opportunity of hearing must be provided before making a decision with serious implications.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.