WP(C)/3513/2021 of ABIDUR RAHMAN SHEIKH (SK) Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. on 9 June 2026

ORDER

Date : 10.06.2026 Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, PNRD, for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 and Mr. S. R. Boruah, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3.

2. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that, notwithstanding the contractual nature of his engagement and the fact that such engagement may otherwise have come to an end by efflux of time, the order dated 07.04.2021 terminating his services is ex facie stigmatic in character. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner could not have been visited with such adverse consequences without being afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. On the said premise, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it appears that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with by the impugned termination order without the initiation of any departmental proceeding and without affording him any opportunity to explain his position. More importantly, the termination order dated 07.04.2021 specifically records that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since 12.03.2021 pursuant to his arrest in connection with Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 167/2021 under Sections 420/496/313/506/34 IPC. The termination is thus founded upon allegations carrying an element of misconduct and casts a clear stigma upon the petitioner. The order, therefore, cannot be construed as a termination simpliciter.

4. The controversy involved in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the Order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in The State of Assam and Ors, v. Partha Pratim Saikia and Anr., (W.A. No. 256 of 2025). The relevant observations therein are extracted hereunder: “10. After having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, we are of the considered view that even in contractual employment, if the order of termination is stigmatic, it has to be preceded by a show- cause notice, or else it would be bad in the eyes of law. If the service of a contractual employee is terminated on account of any misconduct and that also without holding any regular enquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him, the show-cause notice to him is a must.

11. In the present case, the termination order being apparently stigmatic, there could not have been denial of the principle of natural justice of giving him a hearing and permitting him to place his case on record.

12. Even otherwise, we find that by the judgment impugned in the present appeal, the learned Single Judge, though has set aside the order of termination and has directed for reinstatement of the respondent in service within 3(three) weeks from the date of passing of the order, but he has made it only subject to the decision of the State to proceed against the respondent afresh after complying with due process of law, including adherence to the principle of natural justice; in which event it would be open for the State to take further consequential action in the matter, as may be deemed fit and proper under the law.

13. If the State would not like to have the services of the respondent any more for whatever reason, the contract may not be renewed, or he be given a notice to explain the cause and thereafter a decision be taken.

14. For the afore-noted reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.”

5. Having held that the impugned termination order is stigmatic, without being preceded by any departmental proceedings and/or opportunity whatsoever, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, the impugned order dated 07.04.2021 issued by the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam, is liable to be interfered with and is accordingly set aside and quashed.

6. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that, during the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order dated 11.08.2021 was passed staying the operation of the impugned termination order. The relevant portion of the said order read as under: - “It appears from the instruction dated 07.04.2021 that termination has occasioned on the ground of breach of trust as per terms and conditions laid down in paragraph 9 and 11 of the Contract Agreement, the said observation prima facie appears to be stigmatic and hence, the Court is inclined to stay the operation of the office order dated 07.04.2021 prospectively with effect from today.”

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim protection, the petitioner was reinstated and has continued in service. In view of the present judgment setting aside the impugned termination order, such continuance shall abide by this order. However, it shall remain open to the respondent authorities to proceed afresh against the petitioner, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law and after scrupulous adherence to the principles of natural justice. In that event, the respondents shall be at liberty to take such consequential action as may be warranted on the basis of the outcome of such proceedings.

8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant