IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-39353-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 18.02.2026 Sonu ....Petitioner Versus Municipal Committee, Kharkhoda and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Chirag Chugh, Advocate with Mr. Rahish A. Nagrath, Advocate Mr. Mehul Nagrath, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advocate for Mr. Sukhdeep S. Parmar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondent No.2.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the termination order/communication dated 12.12.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.1. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing respondents No.1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner to his post of Clerk/Pairokar immediately with continuity of service and all consequential benefits including full back wages. Another prayer has been made to stay the operation of termination order dated 12.12.2025 and to grant interim relief by paying the petitioner the last drawn salary as subsistence amount on account of non-payment of salary for the month of December, 2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was deployed as Clerk/Pairokar in the Municipal Committee, Kharkhoda/respondent No.1 vide order dated 08.02.2022 through HKRNL/respondent No.2 as discernible from Annexure P-1. During his service, the petitioner exposed a fraud being committed against the Municipal Committee by one Hemant, which resulted in registration of FIR No.419 dated 25.06.2025, under Sections 318(4), 328, 336(3), 340 and 329(3) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonepat, against the said Hemant (Annexure P-2). He further submits that in alleged retaliation, Hemant, out of personal grudge, circulated an unverified audio clip to falsely implicate the petitioner in corruption case and on the basis of the said audio clip and complaint, respondent No.1 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 11.12.2025 denying the charges and alleging vindictiveness (Annexure P-4). However, without holding any proper departmental inquiry, without checking the authenticity of the audio clip and without giving the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend himself, respondent No.1 terminated his services vide impugned order dated 12.12.2025 (Annexure P-5). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the termination of the petitioner is based only on unverified material and the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He further contends that the petitioner has not been paid his salary for the month of December, 2025.

3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court passed in CWP-27378- 2018, titled as Dinesh Kumar vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 09.01.2020 and submits that even if a contractual employee on the basis of allegation of misconduct is required to be terminated, it can only be done after holding a departmental enquiry. In the absence of any departmental enquiry, the termination order is required to be set-aside due to procedural lapses. He further relies upon the judgment rendered by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vijay Barde s/o Late Shri Dhan Singh vs The State of M.P. and another, 2020(2) MPWN 87, wherein it was held that a contractual employee cannot be dismissed for alleged negligence without giving prior notice or a chance to explain and as such, the termination goes against the principles of natural justice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as learned State counsel, submits that the petitioner’s ID is active on the portal of HKRNL and in view of the misconduct reported b