CWP-20191-201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Parshotam Lal Union of India & others CORAM: Present: NAMIT KUMAR 1. filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: 2019 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Parshotam Lal Versus Union of India & others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Fateh Singh Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.P.S.Hira, DAG, Punjab. Mr. D.K.Prajapati, Advocate, for Ms. Sonia Madan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the following reliefs: (i) To issue a writ in the nature the advertisement dated 05.07.2019 (Annexure P issued by respondents No.3 & 4 i.e. District Red Cross Society, Pathankot, whereby they have advertised the post of Secretary on contractual basis in a totally arbitrary and illegal manner is already working on contractual basis since the year 2013 and is now being sought to be replaced by another contractual employee by similar arrangement furthermore for quashing the order dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure P-4), wherein the services of the petitioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20191-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents NAMIT KUMAR Fateh Singh Dhillon, Advocate, Mr. D.K.Prajapati, Advocate, for Ms. Sonia Madan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the advertisement dated 05.07.2019 (Annexure P-3) issued by respondents No.3 & 4 i.e. District Red Cross Society, Pathankot, whereby they have advertised the post of Secretary on contractual basis in a totally arbitrary and illegal manner, more so when the petitioner ing on contractual basis since the year being sought to be replaced by another by similar arrangement, and furthermore for quashing the order dated 17.07.2019 , wherein the services of the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India r quashing of 3) issued by respondents No.3 & 4 i.e. District Red Cross Society, Pathankot, whereby they have advertised the post of Secretary on contractual basis in a totally so when the petitioner ing on contractual basis since the year being sought to be replaced by another and furthermore for quashing the order dated 17.07.2019 , wherein the services of the petitioner VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 2. District Red Cross Society, Pathankot issued 2013 inviting applications (Executive Secretary) was appointed vide appointment letter dated a period of six months Rs.10,000/- per month appointment 09.03.2019 (Annexure P 29.01.2019 to period, the services of the petitioner 17.07.2019 (Annexure P has filed the present petition. 2019 (O&M) (2) have been discontinued in a totally arbitrary, illegal and punitive manner by an act of punishment de hors the principles of natural justice and without calling for any explanation or inquiry and de hors the provisi Service Rules which specifically provide for granting of an opportunity of personal hearing and seeking written explanation before passing of any order of punishment against the employee; & (ii) For issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue on the post of Secretary and not to replace him with another and similar set of contractual employee and also to pay him the minimum of the pay scale alongwith annual increments as admissible to the said pos incumbents. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that District Red Cross Society, Pathankot issued 2013 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Secretary Secretary) on contractual basis. appointed vide appointment letter dated a period of six months on contract basis per month. It is the case of the appointment was extended from time to time and lastly 09.03.2019 (Annexure P-2), his contractual 29.01.2019 to 28.07.2019. However, before expiry of the said period, the services of the petitioner were 17.07.2019 (Annexure P-4). Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. have been discontinued in a totally arbitrary, illegal and punitive manner by an act of punishment de hors the of natural justice and without calling for any explanation or inquiry and de hors the provisions of the Service Rules which specifically provide for granting of an opportunity of personal hearing and seeking written explanation before passing of any order of punishment For issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue on the post of Secretary and not to replace him with another and similar set of contractual employee and also to pay him the minimum of the pay scale alongwith annual increments as admissible to the said post to regular Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No.3 - District Red Cross Society, Pathankot issued an advertisement in the year for appointment to the post of Secretary Pursuant thereto, the petitioner appointed vide appointment letter dated 11.12.2013 (Annexure P-1) for on contract basis on a consolidated salary of It is the case of the petitioner that his contractual extended from time to time and lastly vide letter dated his contractual tenure was extended from However, before expiry of the said contractual were terminated, vide order dated Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner have been discontinued in a totally arbitrary, illegal and punitive manner by an act of punishment de hors the of natural justice and without calling for any ons of the Service Rules which specifically provide for granting of an opportunity of personal hearing and seeking written explanation before passing of any order of punishment For issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue on the post of Secretary and not to replace him with another and similar set of contractual employee and also to pay him the minimum of the pay scale alongwith annual t to regular - in the year for appointment to the post of Secretary the petitioner for salary of his contractual dated from contractual vide order dated Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 3. 17.07.2019 (Annexure P been terminated, passing the said order petitioner nor any opportunity of personal hearing terminating his services 4. to the averments made in the written statement is not maintainable petitioner. It is submitted that (Annexure P Red Cross S Ambulance Association, District Red Cross Hospital Welfare Section Rules, 2015’, wherein division’. He further cautioned with regard to his work and conduct 08.05.2017, 14.06.2017 whereby the petitioner was 5. perused the record. 6. the respondents with regard to availability of the alternative remedy of appeal, it may be stated that the or (Annexure P- 2019 (O&M) (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order .2019 (Annexure P-4), vide which the services of the petitioner have been terminated, is stigmatic in nature. He further submits that passing the said order, neither any show cause notice petitioner nor any departmental inquiry wa opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner terminating his services. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents to the averments made in the written statement is not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner. It is submitted that the termination order (Annexure P-4) is an appealable order in terms of Red Cross Society, District Red Cross Branches, District St. John Ambulance Association, District Red Cross Hospital Welfare Section Rules, wherein an appeal lies before the ‘Commissioner of the respective He further submits that the petitioner had cautioned with regard to his work and conduct 08.05.2017, 14.06.2017 & 07.09.2017 (Annexures R whereby the petitioner was advised to improve his work. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Firstly, while dealing with the preliminary objection raised by the respondents with regard to availability of the alternative remedy of appeal, it may be stated that the order of termination dated -4) has been passed by the respondents in violation of Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated the services of the petitioner have in nature. He further submits that before neither any show cause notice was issued to the was conducted. Furthermore, no afforded to the petitioner before for the respondents, while referring to the averments made in the written statement, submits that the writ petition in view of the alternative remedy available to the termination order dated 17.07.2019 in terms of Para 24(ii) of the ‘Indian ociety, District Red Cross Branches, District St. John Ambulance Association, District Red Cross Hospital Welfare Section Rules, appeal lies before the ‘Commissioner of the respective that the petitioner had been repeatedly cautioned with regard to his work and conduct, vide letters dated (Annexures R-2/T to R-4/T i.e.), to improve his work. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have Firstly, while dealing with the preliminary objection raised by the respondents with regard to availability of the alternative remedy of der of termination dated 17.07.2019 4) has been passed by the respondents in violation of principles dated the services of the petitioner have before issued to the no before while referring writ petition in view of the alternative remedy available to the 17.07.2019 Indian ociety, District Red Cross Branches, District St. John Ambulance Association, District Red Cross Hospital Welfare Section Rules, appeal lies before the ‘Commissioner of the respective been repeatedly letters dated , I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have Firstly, while dealing with the preliminary objection raised by the respondents with regard to availability of the alternative remedy of 17.07.2019 principles VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 of natural justice petitioner any opportunity of hearing remedy does not operate as an absolute bar in exercise of writ jurisdiction India. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of Supreme Court reported as Marks, Mumbai & others, 7. annexed as Annexures R the same have thereafter, respondents continued to extend the petitioner from time to time and lastly his contract was extended vide dated 09.03.2019 (Annexure P having done so, the termination order passed during the subsistence of the extended contractual period. 8. whether the termination order dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure P or not. Since the nature of the order has to be gathered from its contents, the relevant portion from the termination order reads as under: 2019 (O&M) (4) natural justice without conducting any inquiry and petitioner any opportunity of hearing. Therefore, does not operate as an absolute bar for entertaining the writ petition in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of . In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of urt reported as Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others, 1998 (8) SCC 1. So far as letters dated 08.05.2017, 14.06.2017 & 07.09.2017 annexed as Annexures R-2/T to R-4/T issued to the petitioner the same have been issued by the respondents in the year 2017 respondents continued to extend the petitioner from time to time and lastly his contract was extended vide dated 09.03.2019 (Annexure P-2) from 29.01.2019 having done so, the respondents cannot rely upon the said letters to the termination order passed during the subsistence of the extended contractual period. Coming to the question that arises whether the termination order dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure P . Since the nature of the order has to be gathered from its contents, the relevant portion from the termination order reads as under: “17. As it is made clear in the above and service of this employee is not satisfactory. This employee has not shown any act at his level from which it is observed that he raised funds for the District Red Cross Society, Pathankot way of an extra effort or has shown i Welfare/extending help to the unprivileged persons. No conducting any inquiry and without affording the . Therefore, existence of an alternative for entertaining the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of . In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade So far as letters dated 08.05.2017, 14.06.2017 & 07.09.2017 issued to the petitioner are concerned, been issued by the respondents in the year 2017. Even respondents continued to extend the appointment/contract of the petitioner from time to time and lastly his contract was extended vide letter 2) from 29.01.2019 to 28.07.2019. Thus, rely upon the said letters to justify the termination order passed during the subsistence of the extended Coming to the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the termination order dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) is stigmatic . Since the nature of the order has to be gathered from its contents, the relevant portion from the termination order reads as under: As it is made clear in the above Paras, the work-conduct and service of this employee is not satisfactory. This employee has not shown any act at his level from which it is observed that he raised funds for the District Red Cross Society, Pathankot by way of an extra effort or has shown interest in Society Welfare/extending help to the unprivileged persons. No affording the alternative for entertaining the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of Hon’ble Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade So far as letters dated 08.05.2017, 14.06.2017 & 07.09.2017 are concerned, . Even contract of the letter Thus, justify the termination order passed during the subsistence of the extended s to 4) is stigmatic . Since the nature of the order has to be gathered from its contents, the conduct and service of this employee is not satisfactory. This employee has not shown any act at his level from which it is observed that by nterest in Society Welfare/extending help to the unprivileged persons. No VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 Administration through this Society 9. work and conduct of the petitioner construed as a simp nature having the effect of adversely impacting petitioner’s future employment prospects. 10. 361, while considering the similar issued has 2019 (O&M) (5) concrete contribution has been extended by this employee in raising funds for the District Red Cross Society, Pathankot till today from the date of his appointment i.e. during that period were raised by the then Officers through their reputation and recognition in the society and income to this Society has been generated through fairs/Magic Shows on voluntarily basis. 18. Red Cross School for Blinds was opened by Administration through this Society Model Town, Pathankot, but it is unpleasant to submit that no self contribution has been made by this employee towards extending help to these unprivileged children. signatory himself have checked the overall efficiency/capability of this employee, but it is felt that this employee is not giving the output matching to his monthly salary being disbursed by the District Red Cross Society, Pathankot. Staightforwardly, it can be stated that an employee like this is like a burden Therefore, it is not in the public interest to keep the services of this employee in continuation. Hence, it has been decided the extension in the appointment on ad hoc basis employee as Secretary (Adjective Secretary) shall not be given to this employee post dated 28.07.2019. A perusal of the above reveals that work and conduct of the petitioner. The order, therefore, cannot be construed as a simplicitor order of termination, but is clearly stigmatic in nature having the effect of adversely impacting petitioner’s future employment prospects. This Court in Tamanna Vs. State of Haryana, 2026 (1) SLJ , while considering the similar issued has concrete contribution has been extended by this employee in Red Cross Society, Pathankot till today from the date of his appointment i.e. 11.12.2013. Funds raised by the then Officers through their reputation and recognition in the society and income to this Society has been generated through fairs/Magic Shows on Red Cross School for Blinds was opened by the District Administration through this Society for the blind children at , Pathankot, but it is unpleasant to submit that no has been made by this employee towards extending help to these unprivileged children. The under signatory himself have checked the overall efficiency/capability that this employee is not giving the output matching to his monthly salary being disbursed by the District Red Cross Society, Pathankot. Staightforwardly, it stated that an employee like this is like a burden. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to keep the services of this employee in continuation. Hence, it has been decided that the extension in the appointment on ad hoc basis of this (Adjective Secretary) shall not be given to this employee post dated 28.07.2019.” reveals that it attributes unsatisfactory . The order, therefore, cannot be licitor order of termination, but is clearly stigmatic in nature having the effect of adversely impacting petitioner’s future Tamanna Vs. State of Haryana, 2026 (1) SLJ , while considering the similar issued has held as under: concrete contribution has been extended by this employee in Red Cross Society, Pathankot till Funds raised by the then Officers through their reputation and recognition in the society and income to this Society has been generated through fairs/Magic Shows on the District for the blind children at , Pathankot, but it is unpleasant to submit that no has been made by this employee towards The under signatory himself have checked the overall efficiency/capability that this employee is not giving the output matching to his monthly salary being disbursed by the District Red Cross Society, Pathankot. Staightforwardly, it . Therefore, it is not in the public interest to keep the services of that of this (Adjective Secretary) shall not be given it attributes unsatisfactory . The order, therefore, cannot be licitor order of termination, but is clearly stigmatic in nature having the effect of adversely impacting petitioner’s future Tamanna Vs. State of Haryana, 2026 (1) SLJ VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 Nature of the Impugned Termination petitioner. An order which imputes fault, blame, or 2019 (O&M) (6) “17. The core issue that arises before this court for determination in the present matter is: Whether the termination of a contractual employee, founded on allegations of negligence, without any enquiry or determination of causation, and wi affording an opportunity of hearing, can be sustained in law as a termination simpliciter under the contract? Nature of the Impugned Termination 18. It is now a settled principle of law that the form of an order is not decisive, it is the substance, attendant circumstances which determine its true character. Even in the case of contractual or ad employer cannot camouflage a punitive action as termination simpliciter merely by invoking a clause in the contract. 19. In the present case, the impugned order dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure P-13) expressly attributes negligence, non adherence to Standard Operating Procedures, and links the termination directly to a fatal outcome following vaccination. Such averments are not neutral or strike at the professional integrity and petitioner. An order which imputes fault, blame, or is ex facie stigmatic and punitive in character. 20. The law on this aspect is too well ambiguity. However, though the employer has a wider latitude while dealing with a probationer as compared to a regular employee, such discretion is not absolute and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or punitively termination simpliciter. Termination orders founded allegations of misconduct or negligence cannot be sustained without adherence to due process. The distinction between a termination founded on unsuitability and one founded on misconduct is no longer res integra. The core issue that arises before this court for determination in the present matter is: Whether the termination of a contractual employee, founded on allegations of negligence, without any enquiry or determination of causation, and without affording an opportunity of hearing, can be sustained in law as a termination simpliciter under the contract? Nature of the Impugned Termination It is now a settled principle of law that the form of an order is not decisive, it is the substance, foundation, and attendant circumstances which determine its true character. Even in the case of contractual or ad hoc employees, the employer cannot camouflage a punitive action as termination simpliciter merely by invoking a clause in the contract. n the present case, the impugned order dated 17.05.2023 13) expressly attributes negligence, non- Standard Operating Procedures, and links the fatal outcome following vaccination. tral or administrative in nature but strike at the professional integrity and competence of the petitioner. An order which imputes fault, blame, or dereliction is ex facie stigmatic and punitive in character. The law on this aspect is too well-settled to admit of any ambiguity. However, though the employer has a wider latitude dealing with a probationer as compared to a regular discretion is not absolute and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or punitively under the cloak of a termination simpliciter. Termination orders founded on allegations of misconduct or negligence cannot be sustained adherence to due process. The distinction between a on unsuitability and one founded on onduct is no longer res integra. The core issue that arises before this court for Whether the termination of a contractual employee, founded on allegations of negligence, without any thout affording an opportunity of hearing, can be sustained in It is now a settled principle of law that the form of an foundation, and attendant circumstances which determine its true character. hoc employees, the employer cannot camouflage a punitive action as termination n the present case, the impugned order dated 17.05.2023 - Standard Operating Procedures, and links the fatal outcome following vaccination. administrative in nature but competence of the dereliction to admit of any ambiguity. However, though the employer has a wider latitude dealing with a probationer as compared to a regular discretion is not absolute and cannot be under the cloak of a on allegations of misconduct or negligence cannot be sustained adherence to due process. The distinction between a on unsuitability and one founded on VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 2019 (O&M) (7) 21. The Supreme Court in “Jai Singh v. Union of India 2006 (4) SCT 66” while discussing that in what situation the allegation of misconduct will be the motive and in what cases they will be foundation has to be adjudged in background of each case, while “ The issue has been examined in several decisions including several Constitution Bench judgments and a judgment of 7-judges. An elaborate analysis of the various decisions was made by this Court in Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State and Anr., (1999(2) SCC 21). elaborately by 7-Judges in Punjab and Anr., (1974(2) SCC 831). was noted in paragraphs 79 and 80 as follows: "79. The Enquiry Officer nominated by the Director of Vigilance recorded the statements of the witnesses the back of the appellant. The enquiry was to the truth of allegations of misconduct. nor the statements recorded by the reached the appellant. The Enquiry findings on allegations of accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and wrote to the Government on June 25, 1969 that report the appellant was not a suitable person to be retained in service. The order of termination was because of the recommendations in the report. 80. The order of termination of the services of Ishwar Chand Agarwal is clearly by way facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court only denied Ishwar Chand Agarwal the protection Article 311 but also denied itself the dignified over the subordinate judiciary. The form of not decisive as to whether the order is by “Jai Singh v. Union of India while discussing that in what situation the misconduct will be the motive and in what cases has to be adjudged in the factual observing that, “ The issue has been examined in several decisions several Constitution Bench judgments and a judges. An elaborate analysis of the made by this Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. and Anr., (1999(2) SCC 21). The matter was examined Judges in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., (1974(2) SCC 831). In the said case it paragraphs 79 and 80 as follows: "79. The Enquiry Officer nominated by the Director of Vigilance recorded the statements of the witnesses behind the back of the appellant. The enquiry was to ascertain the truth of allegations of misconduct. Neither the report nor the statements recorded by the Enquiry Officer reached the appellant. The Enquiry Officer gave his findings on allegations of misconduct. The High Court the Enquiry Officer and wrote to June 25, 1969 that in the light of the appellant was not a suitable person to be service. The order of termination was because recommendations in the report. The order of termination of the services of Ishwar Chand Agarwal is clearly by way of punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court not only denied Ishwar Chand Agarwal the protection under but also denied itself the dignified control over the subordinate judiciary. The form of the order is e as to whether the order is by way of “Jai Singh v. Union of India while discussing that in what situation the misconduct will be the motive and in what cases the factual “ The issue has been examined in several decisions several Constitution Bench judgments and a judges. An elaborate analysis of the Radhey Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. matter was examined Singh v. State of said case it "79. The Enquiry Officer nominated by the Director of behind ascertain port Enquiry Officer Officer gave his misconduct. The High Court the Enquiry Officer and wrote to in the light of the appellant was not a suitable person to be service. The order of termination was because The order of termination of the services of Ishwar of punishment in the not under control the order is way of VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 2019 (O&M) (8) punishment. Even an innocuously worded terminating the service may in the facts and circumstances of the case establish that an enquiry allegations of serious and grave character of involving stigma has been made in provision of Article 311. In such a the form of the order will not exactly what has happened Agarwal. The order of termination is illegal a set aside." 10. In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and Ors. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. (1980(2) SCC 593) it was observed as follows : "53 : Masters and servants cannot be permitted to play hide and seek with the law of dismissals and and proper criteria are not to be misdirected by terminological cover-ups or by appeal to psychic processes but must be grounded on the substantive reason for the order, whether disclosed or undisclosed. The Court will find out from other procee documents connected with the formal order of termination what the true ground for the termination is. If, thus, scrutinized, the order has a punitive flavour in cause or consequence, it is dismissal. If it falls short of this test, it cannot be called a punishment. To put it slightly differently, a termination effected because the master is satisfied of the misconduct and of the consequent desirability of terminating the service of the delinquent servant, is a dismissal, even if he had the in law to terminate with an innocent order under standing order or otherwise. Whether, in such a case grounds are recorded in a different proceeding from formal order does not detract from its nature. Nor punishment. Even an innocuously worded order terminating the service may in the facts and circumstances of the case establish that an enquiry into allegations of serious and grave character of misconduct gma has been made in infraction of the . In such a case the simplicity of the form of the order will not give any sanctity. That is exactly what has happened in the case of Ishwar Chand termination is illegal and must be Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and Ors. v. Gujarat Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. (1980(2) SCC observed as follows : "53 : Masters and servants cannot be permitted to play hide and seek with the law of dismissals and the plain and proper criteria are not to be misdirected by ups or by appeal to psychic processes but must be grounded on the substantive reason for the order, whether disclosed or undisclosed. The Court will find out from other proceedings or documents connected with the formal order of termination what the true ground for the termination is. If, thus, scrutinized, the order has a punitive flavour in cause or consequence, it is dismissal. If it falls short of called a punishment. To put it slightly differently, a termination effected because the master is satisfied of the misconduct and of the consequent desirability of terminating the service of the delinquent servant, is a dismissal, even if he had the right in law to terminate with an innocent order under the standing order or otherwise. Whether, in such a case the grounds are recorded in a different proceeding from the formal order does not detract from its nature. Nor the order terminating the service may in the facts and into misconduct infraction of the case the simplicity of give any sanctity. That is in the case of Ishwar Chand nd must be Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and Ors. v. Gujarat Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. (1980(2) SCC "53 : Masters and servants cannot be permitted to play the plain and proper criteria are not to be misdirected by ups or by appeal to psychic processes but must be grounded on the substantive reason for the order, whether disclosed or undisclosed. dings or documents connected with the formal order of termination what the true ground for the termination is. If, thus, scrutinized, the order has a punitive flavour in cause or consequence, it is dismissal. If it falls short of called a punishment. To put it slightly differently, a termination effected because the master is satisfied of the misconduct and of the consequent desirability of terminating the service of the right the the the the VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 future prospects of the 2019 (O&M) (9) fact that, after being satisfied of abandons the enquiry and proceeds to terminate. Given an alleged misconduct and a live nexus between it and the termination of service the conclusion is dismissal, even if full benefits as on simple termination, are given and non-injurious terminology is used. 54. On the contrary, even if these is suspicion of misconduct the master may say that he does not wish to bother about it and may not go into his guilt but may feel like not keeping a man he is not happy with. He may not like to investigate nor take the risk of continuing a dubious servant. Then it is not dismissal but termination simpliciter, if no injurious record of reasons or punitive pecuniary cut-back on his full terminal benefits is found. For, in fact, misconduct is not the discharge. We need not chase other hypothetical situations here." 22. This principle was reiterated in “ v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre wherein the Supreme Court held that if on allegations which cast a stigma or are likely to prejudice the future prospects of the employee, the order cannot be treated as innocuous. Relevant extract of the same is as under: In the matter of 'stigma', this Court has held effect which an order of termination may have on a person's future prospects of employment is a matter of relevant consideration. Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, Ray, CJ observed that if a simple order was passed, that would enable the officer to "make in other walks of life without a stigma". It was also stated in Bishan Lal Gupta v. State of Haryana, 1978(1) SCC 202 that if the order contained a stigma, the termination fact that, after being satisfied of the guilt, the master abandons the enquiry and proceeds to terminate. Given an alleged misconduct and a live nexus between it and the termination of service the conclusion is dismissal, even if full benefits as on simple termination, are given urious terminology is used. On the contrary, even if these is suspicion of misconduct the master may say that he does not wish to bother about it and may not go into his guilt but may feel like not keeping a man he is not happy with. He may not o investigate nor take the risk of continuing a dubious servant. Then it is not dismissal but termination simpliciter, if no injurious record of reasons or punitive back on his full terminal benefits is found. For, in fact, misconduct is not then the moving factor in the discharge. We need not chase other hypothetical This principle was reiterated in “Dipti Prakash Banerjee Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre (1999) 3 SCC 60”, Supreme Court held that if the termination is based cast a stigma or are likely to prejudice the employee, the order cannot be treated as the same is as under: In the matter of 'stigma', this Court has held that the which an order of termination may have on a prospects of employment is a matter of In the seven Judge case in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, 1974(2) SCC 831, Ray, CJ observed that if a simple order of termination was passed, that would enable the officer to "make good in other walks of life without a stigma". It was also stated Bishan Lal Gupta v. State of Haryana, 1978(1) SCC that if the order contained a stigma, the termination the guilt, the master abandons the enquiry and proceeds to terminate. Given an alleged misconduct and a live nexus between it and the termination of service the conclusion is dismissal, even if full benefits as on simple termination, are given On the contrary, even if these is suspicion of misconduct the master may say that he does not wish to bother about it and may not go into his guilt but may feel like not keeping a man he is not happy with. He may not o investigate nor take the risk of continuing a dubious servant. Then it is not dismissal but termination simpliciter, if no injurious record of reasons or punitive back on his full terminal benefits is found. then the moving factor in the discharge. We need not chase other hypothetical Dipti Prakash Banerjee , the termination is based cast a stigma or are likely to prejudice the employee, the order cannot be treated as that the which an order of termination may have on a prospects of employment is a matter of In the seven Judge case in 1974(2) SCC 831, termination good in other walks of life without a stigma". It was also stated Bishan Lal Gupta v. State of Haryana, 1978(1) SCC that if the order contained a stigma, the termination VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 Apex Court 2019 (O&M) (10) would be bad for "the individual concerned must suffer a substantial loss of reputation which may affect his future prospects." 24. There is, however, considerable difficulty in finding out whether in a given case where the order of termination is not a simple order o words used in the order can be The other issue in the case before us the words used in the order of termination - the court can go into the words used or employed in other orders or proceedings referred to the employer in the order of termination ? 25. As to what amounts to stigma has been considered in Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Pan American World Airways, 1987(1) SCC 146. meaning of 'stigma' as follows (p. 150) : "According to Webster's New World Dictionary, it (stigma) is something that detracts from the reputation of a person, a mark, sign something is not considered Legal Thesuras by Burton to be blemish, defect, disgrace, disrepute, imputation, mark of disgrace or shame. The Webster's Third New International Dictionary gives the meaning as a mark or label indicating a deviation from a norm. Ac yet another dictionary 'stigma' is a matter for moral reproach." 23. Similarly, in “Jayesh Pravin Chandra Modi v. State of Gujarat R/special Civil Application No. 7166 of 2019” Apex Court reiterated that once misconduct forms the basis of termination, a full-scale enquiry becomes indispensable, while holding that: for "the individual concerned must suffer a loss of reputation which may affect his future 24. There is, however, considerable difficulty in finding whether in a given case where the order of simple order of termination, the words used in the order can be said to contain a 'stigma'. The other issue in the case before us is whether - even if the words used in the order of termination are innocuous, the court can go into the words used or language n other orders or proceedings referred to by the employer in the order of termination ? As to what amounts to stigma has been considered Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Pan American World Airways, 1987(1) SCC 146. This Court explained the 'stigma' as follows (p. 150) : "According to Webster's New World Dictionary, it (stigma) is something that detracts from the character or reputation of a person, a mark, sign etc., indicating that something is not considered normal or standard. The Thesuras by Burton gives the meaning of the word disgrace, disrepute, imputation, shame. The Webster's Third New Dictionary gives the meaning as a mark or indicating a deviation from a norm. According to another dictionary 'stigma' is a matter for moral Jayesh Pravin Chandra Modi v. State of Gujarat R/special Civil Application No. 7166 of 2019”, the reiterated that once misconduct forms the basis of enquiry becomes indispensable, while for "the individual concerned must suffer a loss of reputation which may affect his future 24. There is, however, considerable difficulty in finding whether in a given case where the order of f termination, the said to contain a 'stigma'. even if are innocuous, language by As to what amounts to stigma has been considered Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Pan American World This Court explained the "According to Webster's New World Dictionary, it character or etc., indicating that normal or standard. The gives the meaning of the word disgrace, disrepute, imputation, shame. The Webster's Third New Dictionary gives the meaning as a mark or cording to another dictionary 'stigma' is a matter for moral Jayesh Pravin Chandra Modi v. State of , the reiterated that once misconduct forms the basis of enquiry becomes indispensable, while VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 freedom of the State is not punitive punishment without 11. Kumar Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. 104807, wherein also it has entitled for protection and if his order of termination is stigmatic, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In the said judgment, it has been held as under: 2019 (O&M) (11) “5.3 What is evident from reading the contents of the decision is that if initiation of action is based on an unsatisfactory work, gross negligence or indiscipline, it tantamounts to being stigmatic and unless and until a full scale departmental inquiry whether the employee is a regular contractual employee, the result has to be the Contractual Power and Constitutional Discipline 24. The submission of the respondents that the petitioner’s services could be terminated at any time under the contract does not carry the matter any further. It is trite that contractual freedom of the State is not instrumentalities are bound by constitutional while acting in the contractual domain. 25. The Supreme Court has consistently held that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality. Where the State chooses to terminate a contract not for admin on allegations casting stigma, it standards of fairness, reasonableness, and 26. A termination clause cannot be used as a cloak for punitive action. What cannot be done directly by im punishment without enquiry cannot be achieved indirectly by invoking contractual terms.” To the similar effect is the judgment of this Court in Kumar Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. , wherein also it has been held that even a contractual employee is entitled for protection and if his order of termination is stigmatic, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In the said judgment, it has been held “8. The law in this regard is well settle contractual employee when there is a stigma attached in the What is evident from reading the contents of the is that if initiation of action is based on an gross negligence or indiscipline, it stigmatic and unless and until a full scale departmental inquiry is held, irrespective of whether the employee is a regular employee or a contractual employee, the result has to be the same.” Contractual Power and Constitutional Discipline The submission of the respondents that the petitioner’s could be terminated at any time under the contract matter any further. It is trite that contractual unfettered. The State and its instrumentalities are bound by constitutional discipline even while acting in the contractual domain. The Supreme Court has consistently held that antithetical to equality. Where the State chooses not for administrative convenience but on allegations casting stigma, it must conform to the minimum standards of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness. A termination clause cannot be used as a cloak for action. What cannot be done directly by imposing enquiry cannot be achieved indirectly by To the similar effect is the judgment of this Court in Pawan Kumar Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., 2024 NCPHHC been held that even a contractual employee is entitled for protection and if his order of termination is stigmatic, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In the said judgment, it has been held The law in this regard is well settled as to whether for a contractual employee when there is a stigma attached in the What is evident from reading the contents of the is that if initiation of action is based on an gross negligence or indiscipline, it stigmatic and unless and until a full is held, irrespective of employee or a The submission of the respondents that the petitioner’s could be terminated at any time under the contract matter any further. It is trite that contractual unfettered. The State and its discipline even The Supreme Court has consistently held that antithetical to equality. Where the State chooses istrative convenience but must conform to the minimum A termination clause cannot be used as a cloak for posing enquiry cannot be achieved indirectly by Pawan 2024 NCPHHC been held that even a contractual employee is entitled for protection and if his order of termination is stigmatic, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In the said judgment, it has been held d as to whether for a contractual employee when there is a stigma attached in the VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 principles of natural justice are to be followed 2019 (O&M) (12) order of termination, then whether any opportunity of hearing and regular enquiry has to be conducted or not and whether the principles of natural justice are to be followed 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Spinning Mills Ltd. versus P.V. Swaminathan’ s observed as under:- “3. The legal position is fairly well settled that an order of termination of a temporary employee or probationer or even a tenure employee, simplicitor without casting any stigma court. But the court is not attendant circumstances, to the issuance of order of whether the alleged inefficiency the order of termination or formed same order. If the court comes to a order was, in fact, the motive, then would not be interfered with, but if the conclusion that the so called inefficiency foundation for passing of order of termination, obviously such an order would be held to be penal in nature and must be interfered with since the appropriate procedure has not been followed. The decision of this Court relied upon by Mr. K. Ram Kumar also stipulates that if an allegation of arbitrariness is made in assailing an order of termination, it will be open for the employer to indicate how and what was order of termination, and it is in that sense in the counter-affidavit. It can be unsuitability of the person was the reason employer acted in accordance with the terms employment and it never w But on examining the assertions made in paragraphs 13 order of termination, then whether any opportunity of hearing and regular enquiry has to be conducted or not and whether the principles of natural justice are to be followed or not. Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. P. State Fed. of Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd. versus P.V. Swaminathan’ s case (supra) The legal position is fairly well settled that an termination of a temporary employee or a tenure employee, simplicitor without casting any stigma may not be interfered with by court. But the court is not debarred from looking to the namely, the circumstances prior to the issuance of order of termination to find out whether the alleged inefficiency really was the motive for the order of termination or formed the foundation for the same order. If the court comes to a conclusion that the order was, in fact, the motive, then obviously the order red with, but if the court comes to a conclusion that the so called inefficiency was the real foundation for passing of order of termination, then obviously such an order would be held to be penal in nature and must be interfered with since the appropriate procedure has not been followed. The decision of this relied upon by Mr. K. Ram Kumar also stipulates allegation of arbitrariness is made in assailing termination, it will be open for the employer and what was the motive of passing the and it is in that sense in the affidavit. It can be indicated that the unsuitability of the person was the reason for which the employer acted in accordance with the terms of employment and it never wanted to punish the employee. But on examining the assertions made in paragraphs 13 order of termination, then whether any opportunity of hearing and regular enquiry has to be conducted or not and whether the A. P. State Fed. of Coop. case (supra) The legal position is fairly well settled that an termination of a temporary employee or a tenure employee, simplicitor may not be interfered with by debarred from looking to the namely, the circumstances prior d out really was the motive for the foundation for the conclusion that the obviously the order court comes to a was the real then obviously such an order would be held to be penal in nature and must be interfered with since the appropriate procedure has not been followed. The decision of this relied upon by Mr. K. Ram Kumar also stipulates allegation of arbitrariness is made in assailing termination, it will be open for the employer the motive of passing the and it is in that sense in the indicated that the for which the of anted to punish the employee. But on examining the assertions made in paragraphs 13 VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 2019 (O&M) (13) and 14 of the counter- affidavit, in the present case it would be difficult for us to hold that in the case in hand, the employer appellant really terminated the services i accordance with the terms of the employment and not by way of imposing the penalty in question.” 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Chandigarh and others versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and observed as under:- “10. A perusal of the aforesaid para would show that even in a case of contract of service if the termination is founded on a misconduct then it has to be regarded as a punishment because it is manifest in the order itself. The aforesaid judgement holds the field even today which is evident from the perusal of judgements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Kishore Shukla 1991(1) V.Swaminathan's case (supra). However, in judgements it has been observed that a government servant has no right to hold the post whenever the competent authority is satisfied that work and conduct of a temporary government servant is not satisfactory or that his continuation in s public interest on account of his inability, mis inefficiency it may either terminate the service in accordance with the terms and conditions of service or the relevant rules or it may decide punitive action against the government servant. The observations made in para 7 of the judgement in the case of Kaushal Kishore Shukla's case (supra) reads thus: “7. A temporary Govt. servant has no right to hold the post, his services are liable to be terminated by giving him one month's notice without assigning any reason affidavit, in the present case it difficult for us to hold that in the case in hand, appellant really terminated the services in the terms of the employment and not by penalty in question.” A Division Bench of this Court in Union Territory of and others versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others case (Supra) A perusal of the aforesaid para would show that a case of contract of service if the termination is a misconduct then it has to be regarded as a because it is manifest in the order itself. The judgement holds the field even today which is the perusal of judgements of Hon'ble the the cases of State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla 1991(1) SCC 691 and P. V.Swaminathan's case (supra). However, in the aforesaid judgements it has been observed that a temporary government servant has no right to hold the post and whenever the competent authority is satisfied that work and conduct of a temporary government servant is not satisfactory or that his continuation in service is not in public interest on account of his inability, mis-conduct or inefficiency it may either terminate the service in accordance with the terms and conditions of service or relevant rules or it may decide punitive action against nt servant. The observations made in para 7 judgement in the case of Kaushal Kishore Shukla's A temporary Govt. servant has no right to hold the post, his services are liable to be terminated by giving notice without assigning any reason affidavit, in the present case it difficult for us to hold that in the case in hand, n the terms of the employment and not by Union Territory of and others versus Central Administrative (Supra) A perusal of the aforesaid para would show that a case of contract of service if the termination is a misconduct then it has to be regarded as a because it is manifest in the order itself. The judgement holds the field even today which is the perusal of judgements of Hon'ble the State of U.P. v. Kaushal and P. id temporary and whenever the competent authority is satisfied that work and conduct of a temporary government servant is not ervice is not in conduct or inefficiency it may either terminate the service in accordance with the terms and conditions of service or relevant rules or it may decide punitive action against nt servant. The observations made in para 7 judgement in the case of Kaushal Kishore Shukla's A temporary Govt. servant has no right to hold the post, his services are liable to be terminated by giving notice without assigning any reason VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 2019 (O&M) (14) either under the terms of the contract providing for termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. Since, a temporary Govt. servant is to the protection of Article 311(2) in the a permanent Govt. servant, very whether an order of termination is in accordance with the contract of service and relevant rules regulating the temporary employment or is now well settled that the form of the order is not conclusive and it is open to the Court to determine the true nature of the order. In Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36 this Court held that the mere use of expressions like 'terminate' or 'discharge' is not conclusive and in spite the use of such expressions, the Court may true nature of the order to ascertain taken against the Govt. servant i Court further held that in the order the Court should apply two tests namely: (1) whether the temporary Govt. servant had a right to the post or the rank or (2) whether he has been visited with evil consequences; and if either of the tests is satisfied, it must be held that the order of termination of a Govt. servant is by way of punishment. It in mind that a temporary Govt. servant hold the post and termination does not visit him with any evil consequences as held in (supra) do not include the termination of services of a temporary Govt. servant in accordance with the terms and conditions of service. The view taken by the Constitution Bench in Dhingra's case has been reiterated either under the terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary Govt. servants. Since, a temporary Govt. servant is also entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) in the same manner as a permanent Govt. servant, very often, the question arises termination is in accordance with service and relevant rules regulating the employment or it 'is by way of punishment. It well settled that the form of the order is not and it is open to the Court to determine the nature of the order. In Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36 a Constitution Bench of ourt held that the mere use of expressions like 'terminate' or 'discharge' is not conclusive and in spite of the use of such expressions, the Court may determine the true nature of the order to ascertain whether the action taken against the Govt. servant is punitive in nature. The Court further held that in determining the true nature of should apply two tests namely: (1) temporary Govt. servant had a right to the rank or (2) whether he has been visited with consequences; and if either of the tests is satisfied, it must be held that the order of termination of a temporary Govt. servant is by way of punishment. It must be borne in mind that a temporary Govt. servant has no right to hold the post and termination of such a Govt. servant does not visit him with any evil consequences. The evil Parshotam Lal Dhingra's case the termination of services of a servant in accordance with the terms of service. The view taken by the in Dhingra's case has been reiterated such termination or under the relevant statutory rules Govt. ed same manner as often, the question arises termination is in accordance with service and relevant rules regulating the it 'is by way of punishment. It well settled that the form of the order is not and it is open to the Court to determine the Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. of ourt held that the mere use of expressions like of determine the whether the action punitive in nature. The determining the true nature of should apply two tests namely: (1) temporary Govt. servant had a right to the rank or (2) whether he has been visited with consequences; and if either of the tests is satisfied, it temporary must be borne has no right to Govt. servant consequences. The evil Parshotam Lal Dhingra's case the termination of services of a servant in accordance with the terms of service. The view taken by the in Dhingra's case has been reiterated VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 2019 (O&M) (15) and affirmed by the Constitution Bench decisions of this Court in The State of Orissa and Anr. v. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177; R.C. Lacy v. The State of Bihar and Ors. C.A. No. 590/62 decided on 23.10.1963; Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. The Union of India AIR1964 SC 1854; Jagdish Miner v. The Union of India AIR1964 SC 449; A.G. Benjamin v. Union of India C.A. No.1341/66 decided on 13.12.1966 and Shamsher Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (1974)2 SCC 831. These decisions have been discussed and followed by a three Judge Bench in Anr. v. Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur AIR 1968 SC 1089 11. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sharma V. State of Haryana and others, 2017 (1) SCT 79 observed as under:- 12. This Court would have no hesitation in recording that the decision of the respondent Corporation not to grant extension to the petitioner as regards his contractual assignment is founded misconduct. Since the matter had been enquired into and a report dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure R furnished by the Financial Controller of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad misconduct cannot be seen have to be construed as the to continue with the services decision of the respondent Corporation punitive. 13. During the course of arguments, it has g uncontroverted that prior to the decision contained in Annexure R-3 to dispense with the services of the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was granted to him and even a show cause notice had not been served. the Constitution Bench decisions of this State of Orissa and Anr. v. Ram Narayan 1961 SC 177; R.C. Lacy v. The State of Bihar C.A. No. 590/62 decided on 23.10.1963; Chimanlal Shah v. The Union of India 1854; Jagdish Miner v. The Union of SC 449; A.G. Benjamin v. Union of India C.A. No.1341/66 decided on 13.12.1966 and d Anr. v. State of Punjab (1974)2 decisions have been discussed and Judge Bench in State of Punjab and Raj Bahadur AIR 1968 SC 1089.” A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pramod Kumar State of Haryana and others, 2017 (1) SCT 79 This Court would have no hesitation in recording that the decision of the respondent Corporation not to extension to the petitioner as regards his assignment is founded on charges of grave Since the matter had been enquired into and 30.09.2014 (Annexure R-3) had been Financial Controller of Municipal and against the petitioner, the seen merely as a motive but would have to be construed as the foundation of the decision not to continue with the services of the petitioner. The decision of the respondent Corporation was thus clearly During the course of arguments, it has gone uncontroverted that prior to the decision contained in 3 to dispense with the services of the no opportunity of hearing was granted to him show cause notice had not been served. the Constitution Bench decisions of this State of Orissa and Anr. v. Ram Narayan 1961 SC 177; R.C. Lacy v. The State of Bihar C.A. No. 590/62 decided on 23.10.1963; Chimanlal Shah v. The Union of India 1854; Jagdish Miner v. The Union of SC 449; A.G. Benjamin v. Union of India C.A. No.1341/66 decided on 13.12.1966 and d Anr. v. State of Punjab (1974)2 decisions have been discussed and State of Punjab and Pramod Kumar State of Haryana and others, 2017 (1) SCT 79 This Court would have no hesitation in recording that the decision of the respondent Corporation not to extension to the petitioner as regards his on charges of grave Since the matter had been enquired into and 3) had been Financial Controller of Municipal and against the petitioner, the merely as a motive but would foundation of the decision not of the petitioner. The was thus clearly one uncontroverted that prior to the decision contained in 3 to dispense with the services of the no opportunity of hearing was granted to him VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 perusal of Annexure P principles of natural passed and is purely 2019 (O&M) (16) 14. It is by now well settled that even tenure appointees/contractual employees, if the order of dispensing of the services is founded on misconduct then it is imperative upon the employer to conduct an inquiry and in which such employee has to be associated. In the facts of the present case, the decision of the respondent Corporation to dispense with the service of the petitioner cannot sustain as the same is in clear negation of the principles of natural justice. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, a perusal of the fact finding enquiry would show that the element of negligence has been attributable to the petitioner as well which is similar to the aforesaid perusal of Annexure P-9 would also show that the services the petitioner have been dispensed with on the basis of allegation of negligence. Therefore, it is clear that a stigma was attached to the petitioner at the time when his services were terminated vide Annexure P-9. Apart from the otherwise also, had the petitioner been subjected to regular enquiry, then after holding of the regular enquiry, a similar kind of punishment may have been inflicted upon him as that of the aforesaid Dalbir because the was similar to that of the present pe stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been inflicted upon him and therefore by non principles of natural justice namely not even issuing any notice what to miscarriage of justice has been done. Once an order of dispensing with the services of a contractual employee is passed and is purely stigmatic in nature, then the principles of natural justice were required to be It is by now well settled that even in the case of tenure appointees/contractual employees, if the order of dispensing of the services is founded on misconduct then imperative upon the employer to conduct an inquiry which such employee has to be associated. In the present case, the decision of the respondent dispense with the service of the petitioner the same is in clear negation of the justice. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present perusal of the fact finding enquiry would show that the has been attributable to the petitioner as well which is similar to the aforesaid other two persons. A 9 would also show that the services of have been dispensed with on the basis of negligence. Therefore, it is clear that a stigma was the time when his services were 9. Apart from the above, even tioner been subjected to regular enquiry, then after holding of the regular enquiry, a similar may have been inflicted upon him as that of the aforesaid Dalbir because the aforesaid Dalbir whose role was similar to that of the present petitioner, a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been inflicted upon him and therefore by non-adhering to the justice namely audi alteram partem and by not even issuing any notice what to talk of a regular enquiry, miscarriage of justice has been done. Once an order of dispensing with the services of a contractual employee is stigmatic in nature, then the principles of natural justice were required to be followed.” in the case of tenure appointees/contractual employees, if the order of dispensing of the services is founded on misconduct then imperative upon the employer to conduct an inquiry which such employee has to be associated. In the present case, the decision of the respondent dispense with the service of the petitioner the same is in clear negation of the In view of the facts and circumstances of the present perusal of the fact finding enquiry would show that the has been attributable to the petitioner as other two persons. A of have been dispensed with on the basis of negligence. Therefore, it is clear that a stigma was the time when his services were above, even tioner been subjected to regular enquiry, then after holding of the regular enquiry, a similar may have been inflicted upon him as that of aforesaid Dalbir whose role punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been adhering to the and by r enquiry, miscarriage of justice has been done. Once an order of dispensing with the services of a contractual employee is stigmatic in nature, then the principles of VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20191-201 12. State of Punjab & others State of Haryana & others 13. nature, the respondents were under a legal obligation to adhere to the principles of natural justice before dispensing with the petitioner’s service. Admittedly, neither any show cause notice was issued t was any inquiry conducted afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. impugned order, being stigmatic and having been passed in violation of the principles of 14. petition is allowed. The (Annexure P directed to take the petitioner back into service. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any back benefits. If the petitioner is taken back on duty in pursuance then the responden with law by initiating enquiry, if they so desire. 07.07.2026 Vimal 2019 (O&M) (17) To the same effect are the judgments in State of Punjab & others, 2024 NCPHHC 158934 State of Haryana & others, 2024 NCPHHC 92709 Therefore, once the termination order is found to be stigmatic in nature, the respondents were under a legal obligation to adhere to the principles of natural justice before dispensing with the petitioner’s service. Admittedly, neither any show cause notice was issued t was any inquiry conducted nor an opportunity of personal hearing afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. impugned order, being stigmatic and having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, is liable to be set aside. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of termination dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure P-4) is hereby set aside and quashed directed to take the petitioner back into service. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any back-wages, but he will be entitled to other consequential If the petitioner is taken back on duty in pursuance then the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law by initiating any other proceedings for the purpose of regular enquiry, if they so desire. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable effect are the judgments in Babandeep Singh Vs. , 2024 NCPHHC 158934 and Narender Verma Vs. 2024 NCPHHC 92709. the termination order is found to be stigmatic in nature, the respondents were under a legal obligation to adhere to the principles of natural justice before dispensing with the petitioner’s service. Admittedly, neither any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order, being stigmatic and having been passed in violation of the is liable to be set aside. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances, the present writ order of termination dated 17.07.2019 and quashed. The respondents are directed to take the petitioner back into service. The petitioner shall not be ill be entitled to other consequential If the petitioner is taken back on duty in pursuance to this order, t liberty to proceed against him in accordance any other proceedings for the purpose of regular (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Babandeep Singh Vs. Narender Verma Vs. the termination order is found to be stigmatic in nature, the respondents were under a legal obligation to adhere to the principles of natural justice before dispensing with the petitioner’s service. o the petitioner nor was Therefore, the impugned order, being stigmatic and having been passed in violation of the present writ order of termination dated 17.07.2019 are directed to take the petitioner back into service. The petitioner shall not be ill be entitled to other consequential to this order, t liberty to proceed against him in accordance any other proceedings for the purpose of regular VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.