04.09.2025 STATE OF HA F HARYANA AND OTHERS ANI REENA RANI … v. …
Case Details
IN THE H HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A AB AND HARYANA RH AT CHANDIGARH 109+235 LPA No. Date of de No.2902 of 2024 (O&M) e of decision: 04.09.2025 STATE OF HA F HARYANA AND OTHERS ANI REENA RANI …. Appellants Versus …. Respondent CORAM: HON HON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:13) (cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:1) (cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:7) Present : Mr. Mr. Pankaj Midha, Addl. A.G. Hary . Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Mr. Rahil Maha Mr. Arjun Dosanj, Mr. Anuj Chauha Mr. Ms. Meghna Nehra, Advocates for t Ms. l Mahajan, Mr. Viren Nehra, hauhan and s for the respondent. **** (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:1), J. (oral) 1. This appea appeal is filed by the State of Haryan d by aryana assailing an order passed by learned Single J ngle Judge dated 09.08.2024 passed 022, passed in CWP No.7820 of 2022, whereby, the order passed by the o the appella , appellants herein on 27.04.2021, discontinuing th ing the engagement of respondent- side. -petitioner, has been set aside. Learned Single J ingle Judge has also directed to reins ioner o reinstate the respondent-petitioner within a period o riod of two months. Jyoti 2025.09.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.2902 of 902 of 2024 (O&M) -2- 2. It transpires that the respondent-peti It tra NM petitioner was employed as ANM on contract basis basis in May 2007. Her contractual e from ctual engagement was extended from time to time. Acc e. According to the appellants, the las up to the last engagement continued up to 31.03.2021. It tr
Facts
. It transpires that an FIR No.121 d o be .121 dated 23.02.2021 came to be lodged against th ainst the respondent-petitioner at Poli City, at Police Station Ballabhgarh City, District Faridaba ridabad under Section 5 of the Medi ancy Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 read w read with Sections 4, 23 and 29 of the atal of the Pre Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Tech Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Sel - ex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short- The Act of 1994 f 1994). The allegations in the FIR w was FIR was that an organized team was indulging in sex in sex determination of the pregnant the egnant ladies thereby, violating the provisions of th the Act of 1994. A team of po had of police personnel apparently had conducted a rai a raid in which involvement of t also t of the respondent-petitioner also surfaced. It wa It was on account of her implicati t the plication in aforesaid FIR that the appellants procee proceeded to pass an order dated 27.0 d the d 27.04.2021. This order noticed the factum of implic implication of respondent-petitioner in o the oner in the aforesaid FIR as also the fact that she wa he was lodged in Karnal jail for som ated for some period. Vide order dated 27.04.2021, the he contractual engagement of t was t of the respondent-petitioner was therefore, discon discontinued w.e.f. 23.02.2021 as per hich s per Clause 6 of the contract which is reproduced her ced hereinafter:- “6. Declaration in writing that yo “6. t you are not serving in any other her department anywhere or convicted b dep ted by court of law.” 3. The order dated 27.04.2021 has be The ingle been set aside by learned Single Judge relying up
Legal Reasoning
ing upon the decision of this Court in ory urt in case titled as Union Territory Jyoti 2025.09.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.2902 of 902 of 2024 (O&M) -3- of Chandigarh a arh and others vs. Central Adminis arh inistrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and othe others, 2011(2) RSJ 219. Learned S that rned Single Judge has observed that where the disch discharge orders contains stigma t r of gma then such stigmatic order of termination wou n would be impermissible if it does n of a does not proceed with holding of a departmental inq tal inquiry. Other judgments have al such ave also been relied upon for such purpose includin cluding the decision in Director Gen vs. General of Police and others vs. Mrityunjoy Sark Sarkar and others, AIR 1997 Supre .C. upreme Court 249 as well as K.C. Joshi vs. Union ion of India and others, 1985 (3) SC SCC 153. 4. Learned State counsel submits that Lear 21 is ts that the order dated 27.04.2021 is not stigmatic in atic inasmuch as it only records r d to rds relevant facts with regard to implication of th n of the respondent-petitioner in a crim t that a criminal case as also the fact that she was incarcer carcerated in jail. It is further submi e of submitted that it is being a case of contractual empl employment and there being no st - no stigma attached to respondent- petitioner by vir by virtue of the order impugned, it w rned d, it was not opened for the learned Single Judge to h
Decision
ge to have allowed the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for respondent- Lear ands, -petitioner on the other hands, submits that neit at neither any inquiry was conducted riate ducted in the matter nor appropriate opportunity was y was given to the respondent-petition tions petitioner to confront the allegations made against he nst her. It is further submitted that only that mere lodging of FIR is only making of allega legations and unless it results in pas tion, in passing of an order of conviction, the employer wo would not be justified in invokin ct of voking Clause 6 of the contract of employment. Lea nt. Learned counsel further submits th le to its that Clause 6 is not applicable to be invoked by th by the employer in this case. He also ecent e also places reliance upon a recent decision of the the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ort rt in U.P State Road Transport Jyoti 2025.09.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.2902 of 902 of 2024 (O&M) -4- Corporation Vs. Vs. Brijesh Kumar, 2024 INSC 6 nt in C 638 as well as the judgment in Swati Priyadarsh darshini vs. State of Madhya Pardes rged ardesh, 2024 INSC 620. It is urged that the law is se w is settled that even in the case of a c here of a contractual employment where the termination i ation is stigmatic, an opportunity of he en to y of hearing will have to be given to the employee con concerned. 6. Before we proceed to dwell upon Befo ns of upon the respective submissions of learned counsel f unsel for the parties, it would be appro of appropriate to note that Clause 6 of the contract of en t of engagement, has been referred to rned red to and relied upon by the learned Single Judge, as ge, as has already been extracted abov case, d above, but in the facts of the case, such clause has n e has no applicability inasmuch as the f the as the contractual engagement of the respondent-petiti titioner has been renewed from tim last rom time to time and as per the last contract of empl f employment, Clause 6 was differen uced ifferently worded and is reproduced hereinafter:- “6. The co e contract of Second Party can be te in be terminated by the First Party in of case of insubordination, misconduct oor uct or unsatisfactory or poor performan mance at any time during the servic rvice.” Clause 6 o se 6 only grants an opportunity to t the to the employer to terminate the services of the co the contractually employee in case of ctory ase of mis-conduct or unsatisfactory poor performanc rmance etc. 7. In the facts of the present case, the In th only se, the respondent was engaged only on contractual ctual basis. The respondent was ne any as neither employed against any permanent vacan vacancy nor any of the provisions of ules ions of the applicable Service Rules were to get attra t attracted in this case. The protection rvant ection available to a public servant under Article 31 cle 311 of the Constitution of India w le in ndia would also not be applicable in Jyoti 2025.09.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.2902 of 902 of 2024 (O&M) -5- case of a contr contractual employee. The limited d be imited protection which would be available to a con contractual employee where allega elled allegation of mis-conduct is levelled against him/her w her would be to ensure that opportun such portunity of hearing is given to such employee. The The protection under Article 311 o d be 311 of the Constitution would be available in cas in case of dismissal, removal or r rsons l or reduction in rank of persons employed in the the civil capacity under the Unio 1(1) e Union or a State. Article 311(1) clearly provides vides that no person who is a membe nion ember of civil service of the Union or All India Serv a Service or a Civil Service of a State r the a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State State shall be dismissed or removed te to oved by an authority subordinate to that by which he ich he was appointed. Since a contrac ing a ontractual employee is not holding a civil post, the p the protection available under Articl d to Article 311 cannot be extended to him/her. The on he only protection which would be a oyee d be available to such an employee would be based based on the principles of fairness and ould ess and reasonableness which would be required in a d in any state action in order to ob e of o obviate itself from the vice of arbitrariness und under Article 14 of the Constitutio ctual stitution. In a matter of contractual appointment, wh nt, what would be required would b n to ould be an opportunity be given to employee conce concerned to respond to the nature to nature of mis-conduct attributed to him/her. The ver he version of the employee will have ation ave to be taken into consideration before an approp appropriate decision is taken by the e ue or y the employer either to continue or interfere with th ith the contractual employment/. T e at nt/. The employer will also be at liberty to take an ake an appropriate decision whether o ctual ether or not to extend the contractual engagement of su nt of such employee in view of the all /her the allegations made against him/her with regard to h d to his/her character or his/her impl e. In r implication in an act of crime. In such circumstanc mstances, we are of the view that the rned hat the judgment passed by learned Jyoti 2025.09.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.2902 of 902 of 2024 (O&M) -6- Single Judge, i ge, interfering with the order of the a 1 on f the authority dated 27.04.2021 on account of it bein it being in violation of Article 311(2) ot be 311(2) of the Constitution cannot be sustained. The ju The judgment of learned Single Judg be le Judge for such reasons cannot be allowed to be acc accepted. 8. However, we find that in the fa How , the the facts of the present case, the respondent-petiti petitioner was not even confronted ade fronted with the allegations made against her befor r before discontinuing her contractual aken actual employment. The action taken against the respo respondent-petitioner by the appellan id to lants, therefore, cannot be said to be inconformity ormity with the principles of fairne hich fairness and reasonableness which would be expec expected in an state action. For s ated For such reason, the order dated 27.04.2021 cann cannot be sustained. Though for a d fore, for a different reason, we therefore, do not interfere w rfere with the part of order of the learn , the e learned Single Judge whereby, the order dated 24.07 d 24.07.2021 has been set aside. Howe re of . However, considering the nature of appointment offe nt offered to the respondent-petitione ment etitioner, the relief of reinstatement cannot be extend extended to her as a natural conseque order nsequence of setting aside the order dated 27.04.2021 4.2021. This is particularly so as a c f the as a contractual engagement of the respondent-petiti petitioner has otherwise come to an e facts to an end on 31.03.2021. In the facts of the case, we p , we permit to the appellants to affor ng to afford an opportunity of hearing to the respondent dent-petitioner and thereafter pass d to pass afresh order with regard to extension of her of her contractual appointment within the within a period of 6 weeks from the date of presentati sentation of copy of this order. Jyoti 2025.09.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.2902 of 902 of 2024 (O&M) -7- In view of the above observations, In v osed tions, the present appeal is disposed of. (cid:7) Pending application, if any, also stan Pend lso stands disposed of. (cid:26)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1) (cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:27)(cid:7) (cid:7) (cid:7) (cid:7) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:7) (cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:7) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:1) (cid:23)(cid:7)(cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7) (cid:7) (cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:26)(cid:11)(cid:12) (cid:7) (cid:7) (cid:7) (cid:7) (cid:7)(cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:29)(cid:30) (cid:7) (cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:27)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7) (cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7) Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable : Yes/N es/No. es/No Yes/N Jyoti 2025.09.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document