Even An Employee On A Contract Cannot Be Terminated Without Allowing A Hearing: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition impugning the proceedings that terminated the Petitioner’s service with immediate effect and cancelled the contract.

The bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed, “if an order is founded on allegations, the order is stigmatic and punitive, the services of an employee cannot be dispensed with without affording him an opportunity of defending the accusations/allegations. Even an employee on a contract cannot be terminated without allowing a hearing.”

Advocate Pamarthy Rathnakar appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Nageswar Rao appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

It is the case of the Petitioner that he has been working as a Contract Residential Teacher (CRT) at Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya. After being selected and appointed the petitioner’s contract has been renewed annually. The Petitioner’s services were terminated on the allegations that he sent WhatsApp messages to staff members and demanded bribes of Rs. 2.8L for the regularisation of salaries under the Minimum Time Scale.

The Court said that if the allegation, as pointed out in the impugned proceedings is accepted, it would cause stigma on the petitioner. It would hamper the future prosperity of the petitioner. “Even in the case of a contract employee, whenever service is terminated by stigmatizing the employee, the authority shall follow the principles of natural justice.”, the Court emphasised.

The Court mentioned the decision in Mangal Singh vs. chairman, National Research Development Corporation & Ors. where the petitioner was appointed on contract and his services were terminated by what he alleged was a punitive and stigmatic order, without a departmental enquiry. The Court observed, “when an authority wants to terminate the services of a temporary employee, it can pass a simple order of discharge without casting any aspersion against the temporary servant or attaching any stigma to his character. As soon as it is shown that the order purports to cast an aspersion on the temporary servant, it becomes idle to suggest that the order is a simple order of discharge. The test in such cases must be: does the order cast aspersion or attach stigma to the officer when it purports to discharge him? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then notwithstanding the form of the order, the termination of service must be held, in substance, to amount to dismissal.”

The Court set aside the impugned order as according to the Court the impugned order suffers from a violation of principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Writ Petition.