Termination order Casting Stigma, There Should Be Proper Enquiry, Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates
A single bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Subba Reddy Satti while deciding the writ petition has held that when a termination order is based on allegations that could be stigmatic, it must be treated as punitive. Accused employee must be provided with opportunity to be heard. Background Facts The Petitioner was employed as a Contract Residential Teacher...
A single bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Subba Reddy Satti while deciding the writ petition has held that when a termination order is based on allegations that could be stigmatic, it must be treated as punitive. Accused employee must be provided with opportunity to be heard.
Background Facts
The Petitioner was employed as a Contract Residential Teacher (CRT) at Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya since April 2011. The Employee faced termination from her position. Her employment was based on a contract that had been renewed annually since her initial appointment. On March 6, 2024, the respondent issued proceedings termination the petitioner's services and cancelling the contract. The termination was allegedly due to WhatsApp messages sent by the petitioner to other staff members. In these messages, the petitioner demanded bribes of Rs. 2,80,000 for the regularization of their salaries under the Minimum Time Scale.
It was contended by the petitioner that no inquiry was conducted prior to the termination which she argued violated the principles of natural justice. It was argued by the respondent however, that the termination was carried out in accordance with a clause in the contract. Further, the petitioner's actions warranted dismissal. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the legality of the termination proceedings.
Findings of the Court
It was observed by the court that the petitioner's termination was based on allegations of misconduct. Specifically, the demand for bribes via WhatsApp messages. These allegations, if accepted would stigmatize the petitioner and affect her future prospects. Therefore, it was noted that termination based on allegations that cause stigma requires adherence to the principles of natural justice. Even in the case of contract employees.
The court relied on the Supreme Court Judgment of Mangal Singh v. Chairman, National Research Development Corporation & Ors. wherein it was held that any order based on allegations is stigmatic and punitive, and cannot be issued without conducting proper hearing. It was further observed that the respondent failed to conduct an inquiry or provide the petitioner with a chance to present her case before terminating her service.
Therefore, it was found by the court that the termination order suffered from a violation of principles of natural justice. Based on these observations, the writ petition was allowed. The court directed the respondent to issue notice to the petitioner, conduct an inquiry, and pass a reasoned order.
Case No. : W. P. No. 6396/2024
Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : Pamarthy Rathnakar
Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Sri Nageswar Rao, Revanuru Sudha Rani