Termination of a contractual employee without proper inquiry and adherence to principles of natural justice is invalid and requires reinstatement and due process.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. This is a writ of certiorari. This can be disposed of at this stage itself without calling for the counter affidavit on the facts in the writ petition as the impugned order speaks for itself.

3. Vide impugned order as contained in Memo No.2003 dated 03.12.2024, the contract of the petitioner was terminated. Be it noted that the petitioner was working as Counselor, District Child Protection Unit, Palamau. There was an allegation that in the said Child Unit, there was some sexual exploitation of minor girl, but when the matter was brought to the knowledge of this petitioner, this petitioner tried to coverup the same and did not take the said allegation seriously. On this ground, petitioner’s contract has been terminated on 03.12.2024.

4. The termination order is stigmatic. Even if a contractual employee is sought to be removed from service but if the order is stigmatic, a proper show-cause notice has to be given and enquiry has to be conducted. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs. Brijesh Kumar and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2282 at paragraph 19 of the said judgment has held as under:-

“19. The services of the respondent have been determined solely on the ground of misconduct as alleged but without holding any regular inquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The termination order has been passed on the basis of some report which probably was not even supplied to the respondent. No show cause notice appears to have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of termination of his services, even if on contractual basis, has been passed on account of alleged misconduct without following the Principles of Natural Justice. The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice.”

5. In this case, I find that show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner replied the same, the same was issued to the petitioner vide Memo No.1313 dated 03.12.2024 itself. The show- cause notice dated 03.12.2024 is at Annexure-4. After going through it is clear that the Director-cum Member Secretary, Women and Child Development and Social Security Department has sought for explanation from the petitioner and issued show-cause notice to the petitioner based on enquiry report. It has been mentioned that if nothing is heard from the petitioner, it will be presumed that the petitioner has got nothing to say in the defence. These two letters i.e show-cause notice and termination order is issued on same date. When a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, the respondents should have given sufficient time to the petitioner to reply the same. Further, if there is an enquiry report which is against the petitioner, the same should also have been handed over to the petitioner, so that the petitioner gets a proper opportunity to give a suitable reply. In this case, though the notice was issued, but without waiting for the reply on the same day, the contract of the petitioner was terminated. Thus, the principle of natural justice has been violated. Since the principle of natural justice is violated, the order contained in Memo no.2003 dated 03.12.2024 is set aside.

6. The respondents are directed to handover the petitioner, the copy of the enquiry report and seek proper explanation giving 21 clear days to the petitioner to reply the same. On receipt of reply, the respondents are at liberty to take an appropriate step in this matter.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition