The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that terminating an employee for a singular act of negligence in their entire career, without following due process, is excessive and unsustainable. The decision was delivered on January 8, 2025, by a division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs. Smt. Hemlata Tala (Writ Appeal No. 3111 of 2024). The court upheld an earlier ruling reinstating Smt. Tala with 50% back wages, dismissing the state’s appeal.
Background of the Case
Smt. Hemlata Tala, a government employee, was terminated from her position by the Collector for a single clerical mistake during her service. The order of termination was issued without issuing a show cause notice or conducting an inquiry, violating procedural norms.
The termination was challenged by Smt. Tala in the writ court, which quashed the order in August 2024. The writ court ruled that the termination was stigmatic and procedurally flawed and directed her reinstatement with 50% back wages. The State of Madhya Pradesh accepted the reinstatement but contested the award of back wages, arguing that the respondent had not demonstrated a lack of alternative employment during the litigation.
Key Legal Issues
1. Due Process in Termination: Whether the termination was valid in the absence of a show cause notice or inquiry.
2. Award of Back Wages: Whether back wages were justified when the employee may have had alternative employment during the litigation period.
Court’s Observations
The High Court, in its detailed judgment, underlined the procedural impropriety in the Collector’s decision to terminate Smt. Tala. The bench noted:
“The harsh punishment of termination from service was imposed by the Collector, that too, without giving any show cause notice and without conducting any inquiry. The Writ Court rightly found that the order is stigmatic and unsustainable.”
On the issue of back wages, the court dismissed the State’s contention regarding alternative employment, stating:
“Naturally, after termination for the survival of livelihood, any terminated employee would earn for himself/herself and for family members. That cannot be the basis for denial of back wages, especially when the order of termination was found to be illegal.”
The court emphasized that procedural safeguards are indispensable in employment matters and stressed the principle of proportionality in disciplinary action.
The High Court upheld the writ court’s order, directing that Smt. Hemlata Tala be reinstated with 50% back wages. The appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh was dismissed in limine, and no costs were imposed.
