In a significant judgment delivered on August 22, 2024, the Supreme Court of India addressed the legal implications of non-stigmatic termination of a contractual employee. The Court set aside the order of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and reinstated the Single Judge’s decision that had quashed the termination of Swati Priyadarshini, an Assistant Project Coordinator (APC) under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). The judgment, authored by Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, emphasized the importance of adhering to contractual and legal provisions in employment matters.
Background of the Case:
Swati Priyadarshini, the appellant, was appointed as an Assistant Project Coordinator on October 15, 2012, under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan on a contractual basis. Her tenure was initially set for one year, renewable for subsequent years based on work evaluation. During her service, Priyadarshini raised concerns about misconduct in a hostel for Children with Special Needs (CWSN) run by Bright Star Social Society, leading to a raid and subsequent actions by the authorities. However, soon after, she faced multiple Show Cause Notices (SCNs) from her superiors, accusing her of dereliction of duty and other allegations.
On March 30, 2013, the appellant’s contract was not renewed, and she was terminated on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance. Aggrieved by this, Priyadarshini approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, where a Single Judge quashed the termination, terming it stigmatic and requiring a formal inquiry. The Division Bench, however, reversed this decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Involved:
1. Nature of Termination: Whether the termination of Swati Priyadarshini was stigmatic, requiring a formal inquiry, or non-stigmatic, thereby justifying termination without further process.
2. Contractual Provisions: Whether the termination adhered to the contractual conditions set under the Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission (RGPSM), particularly Clause 4, which requires either one month’s notice for inefficiency or immediate termination for “undesirable activities.”
Decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court, after a detailed examination, concluded that the termination of Priyadarshini was indeed stigmatic and non-compliant with the provisions of Clause 4 of the RGPSM’s General Service Conditions. The Court observed that the termination was the culmination of a process initiated by the issuance of SCNs and that the order carried significant adverse consequences for the appellant’s future employment prospects.
The Court noted:
“The mere non-mention of the background situation or the SCNs in the order dated 30.03.2013 cannot, by itself, be determinative of the nature of the order.”
The judgment also emphasized that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in overlooking the process that led to the termination, which was not a simple non-renewal of the contract but was linked to alleged misconduct.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s Division Bench ruling and reinstated the Single Judge’s order, albeit with a modification. The appellant was awarded notional continuation in service with back wages restricted to 50%. The Court, however, denied the respondents the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against Priyadarshini, considering the long passage of time.
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Title: Swati Priyadarshini vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
– Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 9758 of 2024 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11685 of 2021]
– Bench: Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
– Date of Judgment: August 22, 2024
– Appellant’s Counsel: Mr. Prashant Bhushan
– Respondents’ Counsel: Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Additional Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh
