AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Moa Jamir, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. Inaholi Wotsa, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. None appears on behalf of the Respondent No.5.
The present writ petition was filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 11.09.2025 whereby the Petitioner's services were terminated with stigma attached and the Respondent No.5 was subsequently appointed to the Petitioner's post.
When the matter was taken up by this Court on 17.09.2026, this Court, upon perusing the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 wherein it is mentioned that a disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the Petitioner, sought for the records of the disciplinary proceedings.
Ms. Inaholi Wotsa, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has produced the records and from a perusal of the records, it is seen that a Show Cause Notice was issued in the year 2018 to which the Petitioner replied, and thereupon, the Petitioner was allowed to continue. Subsequently thereto, on the basis of a complaint dated 28.07.2025, without providing a copy of the said complaint even to the Petitioner, the Petitioner's services were terminated vide the impugned order dated 11.09.2025.
This Court has also perused the tenor of the order dated 11.09.2025 wherein stigma had been attached to the termination that the Petitioner had skipped field duties despite requirements and repeated reminders. It was also alleged in the termination order that the Petitioner was in inebriated state while attending office and training programs. Further to that, it was also mentioned that the Petitioner is not sincere in duties which is adversely affecting the performance of the block.
It is well settled that when a termination order is with a stigma, there is a requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing and failure to do so, affects the rights of the Petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution inasmuch as the principles of natural justice is a facet of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
This Court also finds it relevant to observe that from the records it appears that a show cause proceedings was initiated in the year 2018 to which the Petitioner duly submitted a reply. It has been submitted by the learned State counsel that the Petitioner had given an undertaking. The undertaking so given is only to the effect that the Petitioner would not commit similar mistakes, but as to whether, such mistakes were committed or not, could have only been decided when an opportunity of hearing is provided to the Petitioner. For the next seven years, the Petitioner continued his services and all of a sudden, the Petitioner has been issued the termination letter that too with stigma.
Considering the above, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:
The impugned order dated 11.09.2025 is set aside and quashed.
The Respondent Authorities are directed to reinstate the Petitioner to the post of Block Program Manager, Block Mission Management Unit, Tobu with immediate effect.
It is made clear that upon reinstatement of the Petitioner, the Respondent Authorities would be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner by asking the Petitioner to explain his conduct and the present judgment would not come in the way for due consideration in accordance with law.
The Respondent No.5 was appointed to the post held by the Petitioner and it has been informed that he is discharging his duties. This Court would leave it to the discretion of the Respondent Authorities to either terminate the employment of the Respondent No.5 or to engage him in some other Block.