Court Rules Against Stigmatic Termination Without Enquiry; Orders Full Benefits and Service Continuity
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, presided over by Justice Munnuri Laxman, delivered a judgment on April 15, 2026, annulling the termination of Anil Kumar, a contractual employee in the Medical and Health Department. The court declared the termination, initially executed without a prior enquiry, as illegal and unsustainable under law.
Anil Kumar, who served as a Senior Treatment Supervisor, was terminated on March 15, 2020, following allegations of circulating fake news during the COVID-19 pandemic. The accusation pertained to messages about COVID-19 positive patients being admitted for treatment, which led to the registration of an FIR against him. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted, and the charges were found unsubstantiated, leading to a revocation order on July 24, 2022, which gave zero effect to the initial termination.
In his petition, Anil Kumar challenged the legality of the termination process, arguing that the termination was stigmatic and violated principles of natural justice, as it was executed without a preceding enquiry. The petitioner also contended that the subsequent revocation did not absolve the respondents of the illegality of the initial action.
The court concurred with the petitioner, stating that the procedure adopted by the respondents was contrary to established legal norms. Justice Laxman emphasized that a termination based on allegations of misconduct requires a prior enquiry. The court found the method of terminating an employee, conducting an enquiry thereafter, and then revoking the termination as “unknown to law” and declared it illegal.
The court ordered the reinstatement of Anil Kumar with continuity of service, treating the period between his termination and the revocation as time spent on duty. It further mandated that he be granted all associated benefits, including back pay. Additionally, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the respondents, to be paid to the petitioner.
The judgment also granted the State Government the liberty to initiate proceedings against the responsible authority for issuing orders that resulted in undue hardship to the petitioner and financial loss to the state exchequer. The authorities are to be given notice before any recovery actions are taken.
This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to due process and the principles of natural justice in employment-related decisions, reiterating that any deviation from established procedures can lead to legal repercussions.
Bottom Line:
Termination of contractual service without conducting prior enquiry is unsustainable under law. Subsequent revocation of termination order giving zero effect does not negate the illegality of the initial termination.
Statutory provision(s): Employment Law, Principles of Natural Justice, Contractual Employment Regulations
Anil Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2885157
