When terminating a contractual employee based on stigmatic allegations of misconduct, adherence to the principles of natural justice, including holding an inquiry and providing a reasoned consideration of the employee's reply, is mandatory to ensure the order is not arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(a) For quashing/setting, with all consequences, the decision, of terminating/cancelling the petitioner's contractual service treating her disqualified, as contained in the office order contained in memo no.139 dated 26.2.2020 (Annexure-12) issued under the signature of the District Education Officer- cum-District Program Officer, SamagraSikshaAbhiyan, Garhwa, as also the decision, of suspending the petitioner's contractual service, as contained in the office order contained in memo no.83 dated 7/11.2.2020 (Annexure-9) issued under the signature of the District Education Officer- cum-District Program Officer, SamagraSikshaAbhiyan, Garhwa;

(b) For holding and declaring the petitioner as qualified and unblemished fit to be reinstated the post of Warden or on equivalent post at Kasturba Gandhi Girls' Residential School, Garhwa;

(c) For directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Warden or on equivalent post at Kasturba Gandhi Girls' Residential School, Garhwa treating her service as continuous and with all consequential benefits.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed on contractual basis on the post of whole time Teacher (Language) at Kasturba Gandhi Girl’s Residential School, Ramna, Garhwa vide letter contained in memo No. 119/Garhwa dated 30.11.2005 and directed to submit her joining with medical health certificate before District Education Officer cum District Gender Convener, National Program for Education of Girls at Elementary Level (NPEGEL) Garhwa. On 30.11.2005, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner Garhwa that her appointment was for the period 01.12.2005 to 30.12.2006 with a fixed monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/-. With due approval of the competent authority, the petitioner was granted extension of service regularly. On 26.06.2019, while the petitioner was posted as Warden, one student studying in Class VIII fell ill and was admitted at Sadar Hospital and later advised to be treated at a better place. The mother of the student applied for grant of leave for the student and the same was granted by the petitioner. On 20.12.2019, the student lodged a First Information Report being Majhiaon P.S. Case No. 91 of 2019 implicating the petitioner and four other accused persons for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 370(VI),120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 /16 of POCSO Act. An enquiry team was constituted vide memo No. 3913 dated 19.12.2019, who reported that the student was pursuing her education in the school while being pregnant and the higher authorities were not informed. The District Education Officer-cum-District Program Officer asked the petitioner vide letter no. 1344 dated 27.12.2019 to submit her explanation within 24 hours as to why not she be discharged from her services on charges of gross negligence and dereliction in duty. The petitioner sent her reply to the aforesaid letter on 06.01.2020. The District Education Officer-cum-District Program Officer vide memo No. 83 dated 7/11.02.2020 suspended the contract of the petitioner. The petitioner was issued another letter No. 84 dated 11.02.2020 stating that her explanation was not received and further giving her another seven days to submit her reply. Later on, by memo No. 139 dated 26.02.2020 issued by the District Edu