Natural Justice Must Be Followed Even For Temporary Or Contractual Employees: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Himachal Pradesh Excessive Courtroom: A single choose bench consisting of Justice Sandeep Sharma put aside the suspension order of an information entry operator. The court docket dominated {that a} correct inquiry and present trigger discover is necessary earlier than suspending an worker for misconduct. The court docket additional clarified that pure justice rules have to be adopted even for non permanent or contractual staff.
Background
Surinder Kumar labored as an information entry operator with Central Sanskrit College from 2008. After working for over 17 years, he was suspended in 2024 for alleged negligence, ordinary absence, and misbehaviour with supervisors. The suspension order was handed with none present trigger discover or formal inquiry. Aggrieved, Surinder Kumar filed a writ petition difficult this order, and in search of reinstatement with backwages.
He argued that the termination violated rules of pure justice, as no discover was given to him and the allegations had been merely fabricated to oust him from service. On 23 Apr 2025, the court docket directed the college to make clear whether or not any present trigger discover was issued earlier than the suspension.
On the subsequent date of listening to, the director of the college admitted that no such discover was issued. Nonetheless, she claimed that a number of communications had been despatched to Kumar asking for explanations, however he by no means appeared earlier than the authorities.
Arguments
Surinder Kumar argued that the suspension order was unlawful. He argued that it was based mostly solely on unsubstantiated complaints, it was handed with out a discover or an inquiry, and offered no truthful listening to. He submitted that even non permanent staff have to be offered a good listening to. Additional, he argued that mere complaints from superiors can’t be the rationale for bypassing formal proceedings, and that claimed that the order was stigmatic in nature.
The college argued that Kumar was solely a brief worker, and thus a proper inquiry was not obligatory. Additionally they submitted that he was given a number of alternatives to clarify his conduct, however he did not do so. Thus, they argued, that the suspension was authorized and legitimate.
Courtroom’s Reasoning
Firstly, the court docket held that issuing a suspension order with out a present trigger discover violates the rules of pure justice. After reviewing the report, the court docket discovered that not one of the letters despatched to Kumar amounted to a present trigger discover. Thus, the court docket dominated that the college did not conduct a good listening to and observe pure justice rules.
Secondly, the court docket rejected the argument that an inquiry is not obligatory for non permanent staff. Citing Darshana Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh (CWP No. 617 of 2020, selected 24.03.2025), the court docket held that even non permanent or contractual staff have to be given a chance to reply earlier than any punitive or stigmatic order is handed. The court docket held that misconduct being a severe allegation, requires truthful disciplinary proceedings, and never mere administrative motion.
Thirdly, citing Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India (Civil Attraction No. 2280 of 2000), the court docket held that even in instances of retrenchment, if it’s based on misconduct with none correct inquiry, it quantities to a dismissal and is subsequently invalid. Additional, the court docket additionally cited Dr. Vijaykumaran C.P.V. v. Central College of Kerala (civil Attraction No. 777 of 2020), which held that even a brief worker can’t be eliminated on grounds of misconduct with out following due course of.
Fourthly, the court docket held that if the grounds of suspension are linked to prices similar to misbehaviour or negligence, then the order can not be handled as a easy administrative determination. The court docket additionally clarified that if an order is stigmatic or punitive, an everyday inquiry is necessary.
Lastly, the court docket dominated that in such instances that violate pure justice rules, the suspension can be invalid and reinstatement can be necessary. Nonetheless, the court docket defined that the college was free to conduct one other inquiry after issuing a recent present trigger discover.
Thus, the court docket allowed the writ petition. The court docket additionally directed the cost of full again wages for the suspension interval.
Selected: 21.05.2025
Impartial Quotation: 2025:HHC:15013
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Rakesh Chauhan
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor Common of India
