Jan Saikia v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors. B

Gauhati HC10 Nov 2025WA/64/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal; contractual employee termination; stigmatic termination; punitive termination; motive versus foundation; show-cause notice; principles of natural justice; clause 11 Contract Agreement; Article 311(2) Constitution of India; HSLC question paper leakage; CID PS Case No.3/2023; arrest and bail; reinstatement within three weeks; Gauhati High Court; Panchayat and Rural Development Department Assam; Naharbari Gaon Panchayat Dhemaji; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Brijesh Kumar; Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya; Sailendra Bora.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement of the appellant in service within 3 (three) weeks; respondents may proceed against him afresh after complying with due process of law including the principles of natural justice, or may decline to renew the contract or give a notice to explain the cause before deciding.

Jan Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. B — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether a contractual employee terminable without notice under clause 11 of the Contract Agreement is nevertheless entitled to compliance with the principles of natural justice (show-cause notice and reply) before termination. +1 more

¶¶39

Court's answer

Removal for unsatisfactory work is not punitive because the removal is only the motive and not the foundation; similarly a preliminary enquiry against a contractual employee is not punitive since it seeks only whether the person could be proceeded against departmentally.

¶¶43

Ratio / Principle

Having served for a very long time across different gaon panchayats with the contract repeatedly renewed, the employment had assumed a practical permanency obligating the employer to at least ask for an explanation from the employee before terminating his service.

¶¶38

Key takeaways

Although earlier decisions held no notice necessary before terminating a contractual employee, the trend of later decisions insists on compliance with the principles of natural justice of being heard before being punished.ratio¶¶39
In the present case the termination was based/founded on the appellant's involvement in a criminal case (arrest and custody), the misconduct being the alleged suspected involvement in question paper leakage of a public examination.ratio¶¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Writ Appeal WA/64/2024; judgment authored by Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar, sitting with Justice Arun Dev Choudhury; decided 11.11.2025) allowed the appeal of Jan Saikia, a contractual Computer Assistant whose services were terminated with immediate effect on 28.03.2023 by the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam, invoking clause 11 of the Contract Agreement after his arrest in CID PS Case No.3/2023 concerning leakage of the HSLC General Science question paper. A learned Single Judge had dismissed his challenge in WP(C) 4632/2023 on the ground that clause 11 permitted termination without notice and that Article 311(2) of the Constitution did not apply to a contractual employee. The Division Bench held that although the appellant was contractual and terminable without notice, his long-continued, repeatedly renewed service had assumed practical permanency obliging the employer to seek an explanation; that removal for unsatisfactory work is only motive-driven and not punitive, whereas the present termination was founded on alleged criminal involvement (suspected question-paper leakage) and was therefore stigmatic and punitive; and that the later trend of decisions requires compliance with principles of natural justice even for contractual employees. Relying on Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya [WP(C) 2977/2023], Sailendra Bora [WP(C) 6680/2022] and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Brijesh Kumar and another [2024 SCC OnLIne SC 2282], the Court set aside the Single Judge's judgment, directed reinstatement within three weeks, and permitted the respondents to initiate any fresh proceedings only after adhering to due process of law and natural justice, failing which the contract may simply not be renewed or a notice to explain the cause may first be issued.

Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010288502023

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WA/64/2024

¶6

Jan Saikia,

¶7

Son of Sri Mohiram Saikia, Resident of Village Santinagar, Gogamukh, P.O.: Gogamukh, P.S. Dhemaji, Assam.

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

The State of Assam, represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.

¶10

The Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Juripar, Sixmile, Guwahati-22.

¶11

The Director, the State Institute of Panchayat and Rural Development Department, G.S. Road, Khanapara, Guwahati-22.

¶12

The Project Director, DRDA, District: Dhemaji, Assam.

¶13

The District Commissioner, Dhemaji, District: Dhemaji, Assam.

¶14

Page No.# 2/7

¶15

The Naharbari Gaon Panchayat under the Sissiborgaon Development Block, represented by its Secretary, Village: Naharani, P.O.: Gogamukh, District: Dhemaji, Assam.

¶16

…… ..Respondents

¶17

– B E F O R E –

¶18

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶19

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. L. Gogoi, Advocate.

¶20

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶21

Date of Hearing : 31.10.2025.

¶22

Date of Judgment : 11.11.2025

¶23

Page No.# 3/7

¶24

J UDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

¶25

(Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.)

¶26

We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. L. Gogoi, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶27

2. The services of the appellant was terminated vide order dated 28.03.2023, which termination order was questioned by him before a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 4632/2023, who refused to interfere with the decision of the respondents. Hence, this appeal.

¶28

3 . The appellant was appointed as a Computer Assistant on contractual basis on 27.02.2009 but continued in the service till the time his service was dispensed with in the year 2023. While the appellant was working at Naharbari Gaon Panchayat in the district of Dhemaji, an FIR was lodged with the CID police station with respect to leakage of question paper of HSLC examination in General Science subject.

¶29

During the course of investigation of the afore-noted case, namely, CID PS Case No.3/2023, which was registered under Sections 120 B/420/427/409 IPC read with Section 66 B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the name of the appellant surfaced. He was arrested on 17.03.2023 as his involvement in the paper leakage process was detected but was released on bail on 12.05.2023.

¶30

4. The Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam vide his order dated 28.03.2023, impugned in the writ petition,

¶31

Page No.# 4/7

¶32

ordered that since the appellant was arrested in connection with CID PS Case No.3/2023, it became embarrassing for the employer. Thus invoking clause 11 of the Contract Agreement (wrongly referred to as clause 9 of the Contract Agreement), the services of the appellant was terminated with immediate effect.

¶33

5. Clause 11 of the Contract Agreement is being extracted here for the sake of completeness:

¶34

“ 11. Termination of contract: The Agency reserves the right to terminate the contractual agreement at any point of time if it is found that the services rendered by the contractual staff is not satisfactory, or if it is found that any declaration of information furnished by him/her proves to be false or willfully suppressed, or if there is any breach of any of the terms and condition of this Term of Contractual Engagement, or if the contractual staff is found to be involved in any act of indiscipline or misconduct, or if the contractual staff is found to be involved in any act that may become embarrassing for the Agency, or if the contractual staff is absent from job for one week without any prior written sanction. In case funds are not available under the administrative contingency head from where the remunerations are paid, the contract may be terminated forthwith without any notice. The decision of the Agency in this regard shall be final and binding on the contractual staff and shall not be subject to challenge.”

¶35

6. The afore-noted clause 11 of the Contract Agreement clearly stipulates that if the contractual staff is found to be involved in any act that may become embarrassing for the Agency, the contract may be terminated forthwith without any notice and that the decision of the Agency in this regard would be final and binding on the contractual staff and shall not be subject to challenge.

¶36

Page No.# 5/7

¶37

7. The learned Single Judge relying on the afore-noted clause of the Contract Agreement dismissed the challenge to the termination order holding that no notice was required and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India had no application in the case of the appellant, who was only a contractual employee.

¶38

8. True it is that the appellant was a contractual employee and that his services could be terminated without resorting to the formality of issuance of notice to him. But what is important to be noted is that he had remained in service for a very long time and had served at different gaon panchayats wherever he was transferred during his tenure. The contract was kept on being renewed. For all practical purposes, the employment had assumed a kind of permanency obligating the employer to at least ask for an explanation from the employee before terminating his service.

¶39

9. Though in many of the cases decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, it has been held that in the case of a contractual employee, there would be no necessity of serving any notice to the employee before termination, especially when he remains absent or his continuance in service would cause embarrassment to the employer but the trend of the later decisions are towards the insistence on the compliance of the principles of natural justice of being heard before being punished.

¶40

10. The termination order of the appellant was not termination simpliciter but it was punitive in its import.

¶41

11. The basis and foundation of the decision to terminate the appellant

¶42

Page No.# 6/7

¶43

was his involvement in a criminal case. If the work of an employee is not found to be satisfactory and he is removed, this may not be called punitive as the removal is only the motive and not the foundation. The assessment about the performance is not done with the object of finding out any misconduct on the part of the officer. The assessment in that case would only be to take a decision whether he is fit to be retained or continued in service. In case of a preliminary enquiry against the contractual employee to find out prima facie evidence or material to initiate a regular departmental enquiry is also not punitive because the preliminary enquiry is not to find out misconduct but to find out whether the person could be proceeded against departmentally.

¶44

12. In the present case, the termination is based/founded on the involvement of the appellant in a criminal case in which he was arrested and remained in custody for a while . The misconduct here was the alleged suspected involvement of the appellant in question paper leakage of a public examination.

¶45

13. This is stigmatic and punitive.

¶46

14. In Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya vs. The State of Assam and others [WP(C) 2977/2023] and Sailendra Bora vs. The State of Assam and others [WP(C) 6680/2022], it has been held that even though the delinquent was on contractual appointment for a limited period but if the order of termination is stigmatic, it has to be preceded by a show-cause notice, eliciting his reply and only thereafter any decision could have been taken.

¶47

15. In a recent case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others vs.

¶48

Page No.# 7/7

¶49

Brijesh Kumar and another [2024 SCC OnLIne SC 2282] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the order of termination of services of an employee, even if on contractual basis, which has been passed on account of alleged misconduct without following the principles of natural justice, the termination order being apparently stigmatic cannot be sustained without the observance of the principles of natural justice.

¶50

16. Seen from this angle, we find it expedient to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and to direct that the appellant be reinstated in service within 3 (three) weeks from the date of passing of this order and in case the respondents wish to proceed against the appellant, it would be open for them to do so afresh after complying with the due process of law, including adherence to the principles of natural justice; in which event it would be open for the State/respondents to take further consequential action in the matter, as may be deemed fit and proper under the law.

¶51

If the State would not like to have the services of the appellant 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. 17. With the afore-noted observations and directions, this appeal is allowed.

¶52

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶53

Comparing Assistant

¶54

Digitally signed by Gunajit Gunajit Bhagawati Bhagawati Date: 2025.11.11 17:51:31 +05'30'

Jan Saikia v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors. B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jan Saikia v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors. B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Jalal Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Silwanti Hemrom Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mustakin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Monsur Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Mamoni Kalita Bezbaruah Vs Sangita Haloi Baruah and 4 Ors.

Abdus Sabur Ali Mollah and 27 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.