Stigmatic Termination of Contractual Employee Without Inquiry Violates Natural Justice: Chhattisgarh High Court

Chhattisgarh High Court Reinstates Assistant Programmer, Citing Stigmatic Termination and Lack of Due Process

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – In a significant ruling favoring employee rights, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has quashed orders removing an Assistant Programmer from service, emphasizing that even contractual employees are entitled to principles of natural justice, particularly when termination orders are stigmatic in nature.

The case, Ravishanker Vyas Diwakar v. State of Chhattisgarh , heard by Justice RajaniDubey , centered on the removal of the petitioner, Ravishanker Vyas Diwakar , from his contractual position as Assistant Programmer. Diwakar challenged orders passed by the Jila Panchayat and upheld by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, which effectively terminated his service.

Case Overview: Allegations and Termination

Diwakar was initially appointed on a contractual basis in 2011 and his service continued until his termination in March 2015. Prior to the termination order, Diwakar received multiple show cause notices alleging dereliction of duty, including absence without permission, delays in wage payments, and errors in data entry. Subsequently, on March 16, 2015, the Jila Panchayat issued an order removing him from service, citing these allegations. This order was passed without any formal departmental inquiry. Diwakar 's appeal against this order was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner.

Aggrieved, Diwakar approached the High Court, arguing that his removal was illegal, discriminatory, unconstitutional, and violated principles of natural justice. He contended that the order was stigmatic and passed without granting him a fair opportunity to defend himself or to face an inquiry.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel (Mr. Parag Kotecha): Advocated that the termination was essentially a removal from service disguised as non-renewal of contract. He argued that the order was stigmatic as it was based on allegations of misconduct without any enquiry. He cited the Supreme Court judgment in Swati Priyadarshini Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , emphasizing that even in contractual employment, if termination is based on misconduct and carries stigma, principles of natural justice must be followed.

Respondent-State Counsel (Mr. Devesh G. Kela): Contended that Diwakar 's service was purely contractual, governed by Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012. They argued that the order was not a termination but a non-renewal of contract as his term ended on February 28, 2015. The State argued that prior notices regarding Diwakar ’s unsatisfactory performance sufficiently justified the non-renewal.

Court's Reasoning and Reliance on Precedents

Justice Dubey , after hearing both sides and examining the records, noted that the order dated March 16, 2015, explicitly detailed allegations against Diwakar , including "irregularities," "continuous negligence," and causing delays in wage payments. The court observed that despite the respondents claiming it was a non-renewal, the order effectively cast a stigma on Diwakar 's service record.

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Swati Priyadarshini Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , quoting extensively from Parshotam Lal Dhingra v Union of India , which clarified the distinction between termination by contractual right and termination as punishment. The Supreme Court in Swati Priyadarshini reiterated that even for contractual employees, if termination is “founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be complied with."

Further, relying on U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Brijesh Kumar & Anr. , the Chhattisgarh High Court emphasized that termination based on alleged misconduct without an inquiry and opportunity of hearing, even in contractual employment, violates natural justice, especially if the termination is stigmatic.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

> "It is clear that the impugned order (Annexure P/4) is stigmatic and it is also an admitted position that without conducting any departmental enquiry, the said order was passed."

> "…if the termination of service is sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be complied with." (Referring to Parshotam Lal Dhingra v Union of India as cited in Swati Priyadarshini )

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court unequivocally quashed the termination order dated March 16, 2015, and the appellate order dated September 15, 2015. Ravishanker Vyas Diwakar was ordered to be reinstated with 50% back wages. The court, however, granted liberty to the respondent authorities to initiate a proper departmental inquiry against Diwakar , if they so desired, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and affording him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder that even contractual employees cannot be subjected to arbitrary or punitive actions without due process. The ruling reinforces the importance of fair inquiry and adherence to natural justice principles in all employment scenarios, particularly when allegations of misconduct lead to termination and carry a stigma that could impact future employment prospects.