Natural Justice Must Be Followed Even For Temporary Or Contractual Employees: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Sandeep Sharma set aside the suspension order of a data entry operator. The court ruled that a proper inquiry and show cause notice is mandatory before suspending an employee for misconduct. The court further clarified that natural justice principles must be followed even for temporary or...
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Sandeep Sharma set aside the suspension order of a data entry operator. The court ruled that a proper inquiry and show cause notice is mandatory before suspending an employee for misconduct. The court further clarified that natural justice principles must be followed even for temporary or contractual employees.
Background
Surinder Kumar worked as a data entry operator with Central Sanskrit University from 2008. After working for over 17 years, he was suspended in 2024 for alleged negligence, habitual absence, and misbehaviour with supervisors. The suspension order was passed without any show cause notice or formal inquiry. Aggrieved, Surinder Kumar filed a writ petition challenging this order, and seeking reinstatement with backwages.
He argued that the termination violated principles of natural justice, as no notice was given to him and the allegations were simply fabricated to oust him from service. On 23 Apr 2025, the court directed the university to clarify whether any show cause notice was issued before the suspension.
On the next date of hearing, the director of the university admitted that no such notice was issued. However, she claimed that multiple communications were sent to Kumar asking for explanations, but he never appeared before the authorities.
Arguments
Surinder Kumar argued that the suspension order was illegal. He argued that it was based solely on unsubstantiated complaints, it was passed without a notice or an inquiry, and provided no fair hearing. He submitted that even temporary employees must be provided a fair hearing. Further, he argued that mere complaints from superiors cannot be the reason for bypassing formal proceedings, and that claimed that the order was stigmatic in nature.
The university argued that Kumar was only a temporary employee, and thus a formal inquiry was not necessary. They also submitted that he was given multiple opportunities to explain his conduct, but he failed to do so. Thus, they argued, that the suspension was legal and valid.
Court's Reasoning
Firstly, the court held that issuing a suspension order without a show cause notice violates the principles of natural justice. After reviewing the record, the court found that none of the letters sent to Kumar amounted to a show cause notice. Thus, the court ruled that the university failed to conduct a fair hearing and follow natural justice principles.
Secondly, the court rejected the argument that an inquiry is not necessary for temporary employees. Citing Darshana Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh (CWP No. 617 of 2020, decided on 24.03.2025), the court held that even temporary or contractual employees must be given an opportunity to respond before any punitive or stigmatic order is passed. The court held that misconduct being a serious allegation, requires fair disciplinary proceedings, and not mere administrative action.
Thirdly, citing Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 2280 of 2000), the court held that even in cases of retrenchment, if it is founded on misconduct without any proper inquiry, it amounts to a dismissal and is therefore invalid. Further, the court also cited Dr. Vijaykumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala (civil Appeal No. 777 of 2020), which held that even a temporary employee cannot be removed on grounds of misconduct without following due process.
Fourthly, the court held that if the grounds of suspension are linked to charges such as misbehaviour or negligence, then the order cannot be treated as a simple administrative decision. The court also clarified that if an order is stigmatic or punitive, a regular inquiry is mandatory.
Lastly, the court ruled that in such cases that violate natural justice principles, the suspension would be invalid and reinstatement would be mandatory. However, the court explained that the university was free to conduct another inquiry after issuing a fresh show cause notice.
Thus, the court allowed the writ petition. The court also directed the payment of full back wages for the suspension period.
Decided on: 21.05.2025
Neutral Citation: 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 General of India
Click Here To Read/Download The Order