On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the absence of background information in a termination order does not prevent it from being considered stigmatic. The Court emphasized that the true nature of a termination can be assessed by examining the context and underlying reasons, setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision that upheld the dismissal of an Assistant Project Coordinator (APC) under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) program.
A bench consisting of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah found that the termination order against the appellant was not a simple non-renewal of a contract, as argued by the state. Instead, it was the culmination of two show cause notices (SCNs) that made the dismissal stigmatic in nature.
The bench referred to the 1957 case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, which held that terminations based on misconduct or inefficiency amount to punishment and require due process. The Court observed that the Madhya Pradesh government had failed to comply with these legal standards, as the termination order negatively impacted the appellant’s future employment prospects.
The appellant had been appointed as APC on a contractual basis on October 15, 2012, by the State Education Centre, Sehore, with the contract renewable for two years based on satisfactory performance. However, after only five days on the job, her responsibilities were reduced, and she was subsequently issued two SCNs in February and March 2013 for alleged dereliction of duty, negligence, and indiscipline. The appellant contended that she was being harassed after raising concerns about hostel conditions.
On March 30, 2013, the District Appointment Committee opted not to renew her contract, citing unsatisfactory performance. The appellant challenged this decision in the High Court. While a Single Judge quashed the termination order in June 2017, calling it stigmatic, the Division Bench later reversed this ruling in February 2020, considering it a non-stigmatic, simple non-renewal.
Representing the appellant, Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the termination was stigmatic, as it was directly linked to the SCNs that accused her of misconduct. In contrast, Additional Advocate General Nachiketa Joshi, appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, maintained that the termination was merely a result of unsatisfactory performance, not a stigmatic dismissal.
The Supreme Court found that while the appellant had admitted to occasional lateness, her justification of working late to compensate was not acceptable. Additionally, the Court noted that the appellant was in charge of the hostel for only a brief period, insufficient for her to fully grasp and address the issues raised.
The Court also highlighted that the termination order did not comply with Clause 4 of the Rajya Shiksha Kendra’s General Service Conditions, which governs contract terminations. The respondents were caught in a “Catch-22 situation,” as the order neither provided the required one-month notice for inefficiency nor adequately addressed any “undesirable activities,” which would have made the termination stigmatic.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench had wrongly classified the termination as non-stigmatic and a simple non-renewal. As a result, the Court reinstated the judgment of the Single Judge, granting the appellant notional continuation in service with 50% back wages. The Court also denied the state the opportunity to initiate fresh proceedings against the appellant, although future actions could be taken if warranted.
