Termination of employment requires adherence to principles of natural justice; failure to provide due process invalidates the termination.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. This writ application can be disposed of on a very short issue.

3. The petitioner was appointed as an Accountant-cum-Computer Operator on 08.11.2006 in Kasturba Gandhi Girl’s Residential School on contract basis. As his appointment is dated 08.11.2006, petitioner joined on 09.11.2006. Though the said agreement was for one year but the petitioner was allowed to continue to discharge his service which was ultimately revoked vide letter no. 306 dated 30.03.2010. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble High Court by filing a writ application bearing No. W.P. (S) No. 5075 of 2010 The said writ application was heard at length by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that the order of termination is liable to be interfered with and thus has set aside the same.

4. While allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order, learned Single Judge in its final order dated 07^th May 2015 at Para No. 6, has held that the impugned order was passed without compliance of Clause-IV of the terms and conditions, thus, the same is nonest. Further the learned Single Judge has held that the principles of natural justice, have not been adhered to prior to the termination of service of the petitioner rendering the termination nullity.

5. The learned Single Judge further went out to conclude that the charge was framed on 13.03.2010 and only one weeks’ time was given for submitting explanation.Immediately after filing the reply on 21.03.2010, the impugned order dated 30.03.2010 was passed. Without whispering anything on the explanation,the services of the petitioner was terminated, which is illegal.After arriving at the aforesaid finding, the learned Single Judge quashed the termination order and directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. Further the respondents were given liberty to take action afresh/de-novo strictly in accordance with law. It is necessary to quote Paragraph No. 7 of the aforesaid judgment:-

7. On conspectus of factual and documentary evidences, I am of the considered view that the impugned order at Annexure – 4 is not legally sustainable, accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service, if there is no legal impediment in reinstating the petitioner in service. However, disposal of the writ petition will not preclude the respondents from taking action afresh / de-novo strictly in accordance with law.

6. From the records of this case, I find that after the aforesaid order was passed, nothing was done from the ends of the respondents and the petitioner was forced to file a contempt application for initiating contempt proceeding which is numbered as Cont. (Civil Case) No. 302 of 2016.

7. In the said contempt application, the respondents produced an order dated4^th July 2016 before the learned Single Judge and thus the contempt petition was dropped with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge before the appropriate forum.

8. In impugned order dated 04^th July 2017, the respondent has passed similar orders i.e., removing the petitioner from service on the allegations levelled against the petitioner which was the subject matter in the earlier writ petitions. While going through the earlier orders passed in earlier writ applications especially the direction in Paragraph No. 7 of the order, which has been quoted above, I find that there was a specific direction to initiate a proceeding afresh/de-novo. The word de-novofrom Black’s Law Dictionary, 12^th Edition, suggests independent determination without refering to any earlier analysis about the matter. Th