In a judgment reinforcing the principles of natural justice, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has quashed the termination of a temporary health department employee, Jayant Kumar Singh, on the ground that the dismissal order was stigmatic and issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The order, dated 14 February 2025, had been passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Sitapur, solely on the basis of a pending criminal case.
Background
Jayant Kumar Singh, employed temporarily under the Department of Medical and Health, Government of Uttar Pradesh, challenged the termination order issued against him, asserting that it was punitive and based only on the fact that an FIR had been lodged against him, for which the trial was still pending. The petitioner contended that no departmental inquiry was conducted and no opportunity to present his case was given prior to the dismissal.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in Basudeo Tiwary vs. Sido Kanhu University [(1998) 8 SCC 194], where it was held that non-arbitrariness and the right to be heard are essential in any employment termination involving allegations. It was argued that the order was not only stigmatic but also in breach of the principles of natural justice.
Reference was also made to:
- Nar Singh Pal vs. Union of India [(2000) 3 SCC 588], holding that even a temporary employee attains rights under Article 311 of the Constitution once he gains temporary status.
- Shasya Singh vs. State of U.P. [2020 SCC OnLine All 106], which reiterated that termination based on misconduct must be preceded by a lawful inquiry.
Respondents’ Submissions
Counsel for the State and the Chief Medical Officer argued that the petitioner was an untrained temporary appointee, and his appointment letter expressly allowed for termination upon any complaint or irregularity. It was submitted that the pending FIR was treated as such an irregularity, justifying the termination.
However, they conceded that there were no specific service rules to govern disciplinary proceedings against temporary employees and no rules mandating an inquiry.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan observed that the termination order, despite being against a temporary employee, was stigmatic in nature and based on allegations of moral turpitude. In such cases, the Court held that:
“The impugned order dated 14.02.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and unwarranted inasmuch as the aforesaid punishment order has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice and without conducting any inquiry.”
The Court further noted that the petitioner had been in judicial custody from 10.01.2025 to 17.01.2025, which did not by itself justify dismissal without due process. The Judge held that the appropriate course, if deemed necessary, would have been to suspend the petitioner pending inquiry, not outright termination.
Decision
The High Court quashed the termination order dated 14.02.2025 on the limited ground of violation of natural justice. The Court clarified that the competent authority is free to proceed afresh in accordance with law, provided the petitioner is granted a hearing.
The writ petition was allowed and consequential orders were directed to be passed in accordance with law. No costs were awarded.
Citation: Jayant Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ-A No. 4208 of 2025
