SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE ORDER OF HIGH COURT AND REINSTATES THE SINGLE JUDGE’S ORDER WITH A MODIFICATION

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed a Judgment dated 22.08.2024 in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. etc., Civil Appeal No.9758 of 2024 and observed that the Appellant’s termination was stigmatic and did not comply with Clause 4 of the Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission (RGPSM’s)[i] General Service Conditions. The Court highlighted that her termination was from a process that began with the issuance of Show Cause Notices (SCNs) and that the resulting order had serious negative implications for her future employment prospects.

FACTS:

1) That the Appeal mentioned above was filed before the Apex Court by the, Swati Priyadarshini (Appellant) against the State of Madhya Pradesh (Respondent No.1), the Commissioner, Rajya Shiksha Kendra (Respondent No. 2), the Collector (Respondent No. 3), one B S Jamod (Respondent No. 4)  and one Ashok Paradkar (Respondent No. 5), who challenged the validity of the Final Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2020 (Impugned Judgment) passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur (High Court) in Writ Appeal No.956/2017, whereby it overruled the Judgment dated 20.06.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.8404/2013.

2) On 15.10.2012, Respondent No. 4 appointed the sole Appellant to the position of Assistant Project Coordinator (APC) under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) on a contract basis for an initial term of one academic session (1 year), with the possibility of renewal for subsequent two-year terms, subject to evaluation of her performance in the first year.

3) The Appellant received information about alleged misconduct and immoral activities occurring in the CWSN (Children with Special Needs) Girls’ Hostel in Sehore, which Bright Star Social Society, a non-governmental organisation, ran. The Appellant’s complaint led the State Level Committee to raid the hostel, verify the allegations, and terminate the Memorandum of Understanding with Bright Star on 08.01.2013.

4) On 09.01.2013, the Appellant took charge of the hostel. On 10.01.2013, the Sub-Divisional Officer and Magistrate, Sehore, instructed the District Coordinator of the State Education Centre, Sehore, to file a First Information Report against the warden for the alleged crimes committed at the hostel.

5) Further, just 5 or 6 days after the incident on 14.01.2013, the Appellant assumed responsibility for the hostel, Respondent No. 5 withdrew her charge of the hostel. The Appellant received a Show-Cause Notice (SCN) accusing her of negligence for marking her attendance on 04.01.2013 and 05.01.2013, and for arriving late at the office on 14.02.2013. The Appellant responded on 16.02.2013, denying the attendance issue and explaining that she had arrived late due to her daughter’s arrival from Bhopal but worked late to complete her tasks.

6) On 15.03.2013, Respondent No. 4 issued another Show Cause Notice, listing several charges against the Appellant: failure to mark and verify lists of disabled children, obstructing appointments of volunteers and MRCs, not submitting reports on the CWSN hostel monitoring, allowing unauthorised persons into the hostel, residing outside the headquarters, and being late to the office and signing the attendance register. The Appellant claimed that these charges were part of a scheme to remove her from her position and cited harassment and non-cooperation from other officers as reasons for her difficulties.

7) The Appellant responded to the SCN on 22.03.2013, alleging non-cooperation and mental harassment by other officers and asserting that her reputation was being damaged by negative feedback.

8) On 30.03.2013, Respondent No. 4 decided not to renew the Appellant’s contract as APC, citing unsatisfactory performance and dereliction of duty. The order stated that her contract would not be extended beyond 31.03.2013.

9) Aggrieved, the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 8404/2013 before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the order dated 30.03.2013. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition on June 20, 2017, quashing the termination order because it was stigmatic and related to alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude, which required a regular inquiry.

10) The official Respondents, dissatisfied with the Single Judge’s decision, filed Writ Appeal No. 956/2017 before the Division Bench under Section 2 of The Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. The Division Bench allowed the Appeal on 03.02.2020, leading the Appellant to challenge this decision..

 

HIGH COURT:

The Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 8404/2013 quashed the termination Order dated 30.03.2013, ruling that the termination, being stigmatic and involving allegations of moral turpitude, required a regular inquiry before it could be implemented. However, on 03.02.2020, the Division Bench allowed Writ Appeal No. 956/2017 filed by the official Respondents, overturning the Single Judge’s decision and validating the termination order, thereby disagreeing with the Single Judge’s stance on the need for an inquiry.

SUPREME COURT:

Aggrieved by the High Court Order dated 03-02-2020, the Appellant filed Special Leave Petition (C) No.11685 of 2021 before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court vide Order dated 22.08.2024 held as follows:

ISSUE:

1) Whether the termination of the Appellant’s services was a simple non-renewal of contract or a stigmatic termination involving moral turpitude.

2) Whether the termination complied with Clause 4 of the RGPSM’s General Service Conditions, which stipulates different procedures for termination based on inefficiency versus involvement in undesirable activities.

3) Whether the procedural requirements for termination—specifically, the need for a regular inquiry in case of stigmatic termination and the requirement for notice in case of inefficiency—were properly followed.

4) Whether the termination had adverse effects on the Appellant’s future career prospects and whether such termination was effectively a penalty requiring adherence to specific legal and procedural protections.

OBSERVATION:

The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, found that the Division Bench’s interference with the Single Judge’s judgment required reconsideration.

The Court noted that the Appellant’s termination order, dated 30.03.2013, was problematic under Clause 4 of the RGPSM’s General Service Conditions. This clause provides for immediate termination for “undesirable activities” but requires one month’s notice for inefficiency, which was not adhered to.

The Court highlighted that the Division Bench had not adequately considered the implications of the termination order’s nature or the SCNs issued. The Supreme Court referenced established principles that the form of an order is not definitive of its nature; rather, the real reason behind the termination must be examined. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the termination had stigmatic effects and was not handled correctly according to the contractual provisions.

Thus, the Supreme Court revived the Single Judge’s judgment with modifications, including awarding the Appellant consequential benefits and restricting back wages to 50%. The Court also barred the Respondents from initiating fresh proceedings against the Appellant but allowed future actions in accordance with the law if needed.

CONCLUSION:

Based on the aforementioned facts, the Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench’s decision was incorrect. The Court determined that the termination order dated 30.03.2013 was stigmatic, requiring adherence to specific procedural protections, including the need for a regular inquiry. The termination did not comply with Clause 4 of the RGPSM’s General Service Conditions, which required notice for inefficiency or immediate action for undesirable activities, and it had adverse consequences for the Appellant’s future employment prospects.

Consequently, the Court revived the Single Judge’s judgment, modifying it to award consequential benefits to the Appellant and restrict back wages to 50%. The Respondents were barred from initiating fresh proceedings against the Appellant but could take future actions as required by law.

Sakshi Raghuvanshi

Senior Associate

The Indian Lawyer

 

[i] Clause 4 of the RGPSM’s General Service Conditions under the heading

“Resignation/Termination” provides as below:

 

“Persons working on contract can be terminated with one month notice if found inefficient. In case of persons found indulged in undesirable activities amounting to degradation of dignity of Mission, Mission Director shall reserve right to terminate him/her with immediate effect.”