Back
Slams "High-Handed" Terminations, Orders Reinstatement of Permanent Worker
In a ruling that reinforces safeguards for government employees, the has struck down two termination orders and a demotion disguised as reinstatement, holding that cannot justify dismissal without a properly conducted .
From Daily Wager to Confirmed Permanent Status—and Back Again
Akhilesh Nimawat began his journey as a daily wager in 1995. After an earlier termination in 2000 that was overturned by the , he approached the in 2012 seeking permanency. The Court’s intervention bore fruit: he was confirmed as a permanent skilled worker in 2017–18. Yet his troubles resurfaced in 2021 when a accused him of failing to obey instructions from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Incident Commander, Ratlam, regarding fine collection for masks.
Without any inquiry, the authorities terminated his services on . A later reinstatement order of downgraded him to daily-wager status; months afterward came a second, final termination.
The State’s Defence Collapses Under Scrutiny
The respondents argued that Nimawat’s reply was unsatisfactory, that government memorandums barred reinstatement at permanent grade after dismissal, and that his irregular attendance after the last-chance reinstatement justified the final axe.
The Court found this reasoning legally untenable. Justice Jai Kumar Pillai noted that the foundation of the terminations was clearly allegations of “.” Casting such without evidence adduced in a , the bench held, violates settled —even for contractual or daily-rated employees.
Why a Mere Falls Short
Relying on its earlier decision in , the Court emphasised that when misconduct forms the basis of termination, authorities must conduct a formal inquiry where the employee can cross-examine witnesses and lead defence evidence. Simply branding a reply “unsatisfactory” does not meet constitutional standards.
The bench was equally critical of the order that arbitrarily stripped Nimawat of his judicially conferred permanent status. Because the initial termination itself was illegal, all subsequent orders flowing from it were declared void.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The Court’s reasoning is captured in these pointed remarks:
“It is a well-settled proposition of law that even though an employee may be appointed as a contractual or daily employee, the must strictly be followed when termination is founded on .”
“Casting such a upon the petitioner without adducing evidence in a is legally impermissible.”
“The allegations of were clearly the foundation of the termination.”
What the Court Has Now Directed
The impugned orders dated , and stand quashed. Nimawat must be restored to his permanent worker position with continuity of service. The State is also directed to release his unpaid wages from . Crucially, the judgment leaves the door open for fresh departmental proceedings—provided they follow .
Legal observers note that the verdict aligns with the broader principle reported in contemporary coverage: termination on allegations of disobedience without a remains legally impermissible. The ruling is expected to serve as a strong precedent protecting long-serving employees from arbitrary administrative action.
Justice Pillai’s order sends a clear message that is not optional when careers and livelihoods are at stake.
