State of Haryana and Others Vs Reena Rani — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

State of Haryana and Others Vs Reena Rani — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of. Though for a different reason (breach of fairness and reasonableness, not Article 311), the Division Bench did not interfere with the Single Judge's setting aside of the order dated 27.04.2021; however, the relief of reinstatement was denied as the contractual engagement ended on 31.03.2021, and the appellants were permitted to afford the respondent an opportunity of hearing and pass an afresh order on extension of her contractual appointment within 6 weeks of presentation of the order's copy.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 27.04.2021 discontinuing the respondent-petitioner's contractual engagement, made on account of her implication in FIR No.121 dated 23.02.2021, was stigmatic and sustainable in the absence of a departmental inquiry and opportunity of hearing, even in a contractual employment. +3 more

Court's answer

In the facts of the present case, the respondent-petitioner was not even confronted with the allegations made against her before discontinuing her contractual employment; the action taken by the appellants was therefore not in conformity with the principles of fairness and reasonableness expected of state action, and for such reason the order dated 27.04.2021 cannot be sustained.

Ratio / Principle

On the facts of the case, Clause 6 of the contract of engagement (requiring a declaration that the employee is not serving in any other department or convicted by a court) had no applicability, since the contractual engagement was renewed from time to time and, as per the last contract of employment, Clause 6 was differently worded, granting the employer only an opportunity to terminate the services of the contractual employee in case of mis-conduct or unsatisfactory poor performance.

Key takeaways

The protection under Article 311 of the Constitution is not available to a contractual employee: Article 311(1) confines protection to members of the civil services and persons holding civil posts, and since a contractual employee is not holding a civil post, that protection cannot be extended to him/her; the protection available instead is based on principles of fairness and reasonableness required of state action so as to avoid arbitrariness under Article 14.ratio¶7
The judgment of the learned Single Judge, interfering with the order of the authority dated 27.04.2021 on the footing that it was in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, cannot be sustained and cannot be allowed to be accepted.ratio¶7
Considering the nature of the contractual appointment, the relief of reinstatement cannot be extended to the respondent-petitioner as a natural consequence of setting aside the order dated 27.04.2021, particularly as her contractual engagement had otherwise come to an end on 31.03.2021.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contractual employment — Stigmatic termination — Opportunity of hearing — Article 311 inapplicable to contractual employees. Respondent, engaged as ANM on contract in May 2007 with renewals up to 31.03.2021, was discontinued w.e.f. 23.02.2021 by order dated 27.04.2021 following implication in FIR No.121 dated 23.02.2021 (Sections 4, 23, 29, PC&PNDT Act 1994 read with Section 5, MTP Act 1971) and incarceration, invoking Clause 6 of the contract. The Single Judge (CWP No.7820 of 2022, decided 09.08.2024) set the order aside as stigmatic, relying on Union Territory of Chandigarh v. CAT, DGP v. Mrityunjoy Sarkar and K.C. Joshi, and directed reinstatement within two months. In LPA, the Division Bench held: (i) Clause 6 of the initial contract had no applicability, the last contract carrying a differently worded Clause 6; (ii) a contractual employee holds no civil post, so Article 311 protection — and the Single Judge's interference premised on Article 311(2) — was unsustainable; yet (iii) discontinuance without confronting the employee with the allegations offended the fairness and reasonableness demanded of state action under Article 14, so the 27.04.2021 order could not stand, though for different reasons; (iv) reinstatement is not a natural consequence where the contractual term had expired on 31.03.2021. The State was permitted to hear the respondent and pass an afresh order on extension within six weeks. Appeal disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

109+235 LPA No.2902 of 2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.09.2025

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

…. Appellants

Versus

REENA RANI

… . Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

Present : M r . Pankaj Midha, Addl. A.G. Ha r yana for the appellants.

M r . Sunil K. Nehra, Mr. Rahil Ma h ajan, Mr. Viren Nehra, M r . Arjun Dosanj, Mr. Anuj Chau h an and Ms. Meghna Nehra, Advocates fo r the respondent.

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (oral)

This appeal is filed by the State of Hary a na assailing an order passed b y learned Single Judge dated 09.08.2024 pass e d in CWP No.7820 of 2022 , whereby, the order passed by the appellants herein on 27.04.2021 , discontinuing t he engagement of respondent - petitioner, has been set aside . Learned Singl e Judge has also directed to re i nstate the respondent-petitione r within a period of two months.

Jyoti 2025.09.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No.2902 of 2024 (O&M) -2-

It t ranspires that the respondent-p e titioner was employed as AN M on contract basis in May 2007. Her contractual engagement was extended fro m time to time. A ccording to the appellants, the l ast engagement continued up t o 31.03.2021. It transpires that an FIR No.121 dated 23.02.2021 came to b e lodged against the respondent-petitioner at P o lice Station Ballabhgarh City , District Farida b ad under Section 5 of the Me d ical Termination of Pregnanc y Act, 1971 read with Sections 4, 23 and 29 of t h e Pre Conception and Pre-Nata l Diagnostic Te c hniques (Prohibition of Sex S e lection) Act, 1994 (for shortThe Act of 1994). The allegations in the FIR w as that an organized team wa s indulging in s e x determination of the pregn a nt ladies thereby, violating th e provisions of the Act of 1994 . A team of p olice personnel apparently ha d conducted a raid in which involvement of the respondent-petitioner als o surfaced. It w as on account of her implic a tion in aforesaid FIR that th e appellants pro c eeded to pass an order dated 27.04.2021. This order noticed th e factum of implication of respondent - petitioner in the aforesaid FIR as also th e fact that she w as lodged in Karnal jail for some period. Vide order date d 27.04.2021, t h e contractual engagement of the respondent-petitioner wa s therefore, disc o ntinued w.e.f. 23.02.2021 as pe r Clause 6 of the contract whic h is reproduced h ereinafter:-

“ 6 . Declaration in writing that y ou are not serving in any othe r d ep artment anywhere or convicte d by court of law.” 3. T h e order dated 27.04.2021 has b een set aside by learned Singl e Judge relying u pon the decision of this Court 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 2024 (O&M) -3-

of Chandigarh and others vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others, 2011(2) RSJ 219 . Learned Single Judge has observed tha t where the dis c harge orders contains stigma then such stigmatic order o f termination w o uld be impermissible if it doe s not proceed with holding of a departmental i n quiry. Other judgments have also been relied upon for suc h purpose including the decision in Director General of Police and others vs. Mrityunjoy Sarkar and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 249 as well as K.C. Joshi vs. Union of India and others, 1985 (3) SCC 153. 4. L e arned State counsel submits th a t the order dated 27.04.2021 i s not stigmatic inasmuch as it only records relevant facts with regard t o implication of t he respondent-petitioner in a c r iminal case as also the fact tha t she was incar c erated in jail. It is further sub m itted that it is being a case o f contractual e m ployment and there being no stigma attached to respondent - petitioner by virtue of the order impugned, it was not opened for the learne d Single Judge t o have allowed the writ petition.

L e arned counsel for respondent - petitioner on the other hands , submits that n e ither any inquiry was conduct e d in the matter nor appropriat e opportunity w a s given to the respondent-petit i oner to confront the allegation s made against h er. It is further submitted th a t mere lodging of FIR is onl y making of alle g ations and unless it results in p a ssing of an order of conviction , the employer w ould not be justified in invok i ng Clause 6 of the contract o f employment. L earned counsel further submits t hat Clause 6 is not applicable t o be invoked by t he employer in this case. He also places reliance upon a recen t decision of t h e Hon’ble Supreme Court i n 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 2024 (O&M) -4- Corporation Vs. Brijesh Kumar, 2024 INSC 638 as well as the judgment i n Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pardesh, 2024 INSC 620. It is urge d that the law is s ettled that even in the case of a contractual employment wher e the terminatio n is stigmatic, an opportunity of hearing will have to be given t o the employee concerned.

B e fore we proceed to dwell upo n the respective submissions o f learned counse l for the parties, it would be ap p ropriate to note that Clause 6 o f the contract of engagement, has been referred t o and relied upon by the learne d Single Judge, a s has already been extracted ab o ve, but in the facts of the case , such clause ha s no applicability inasmuch as t h e contractual engagement of th e respondent-pet i tioner has been renewed from t ime to time and as per the las t contract of em p loyment, Clause 6 was differ e ntly worded and is reproduce d hereinafter:-

“6. The c ontract of Second Party can be terminated by the First Party i n case o f insubordination, misconduc t or unsatisfactory or poo r perform a nce at any time during the serv i ce .” Clause 6 only grants an opportunity t o the employer to terminate th e services of the contractually employee in case o f mis-conduct or unsatisfactor y poor performa n ce etc.

In the facts of the present case, t h e respondent was engaged onl y on contractual basis. The respondent was neither employed against an y permanent vac a ncy nor any of the provisions of the applicable Service Rule s were to get att r acted in this case. The protection available to a public servan t under Article 3 11 of the Constitution of India would also not be applicable i n

Jyoti 2025.09.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No.2902 of 2024 (O&M) -5-

case of a co n tractual employee. The limit e d protection which would b e available to a contractual employee where alle g ation of mis-conduct is levelle d against him/he r would be to ensure that opport u nity of hearing is given to suc h employee. Th e protection under Article 311 of the Constitution would b e available in c a se of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of person s employed in t h e civil capacity under the U n ion or a State. Article 311(1 ) clearly provides that no person who is a mem b er of civil service of the Unio n or All India Se r vice or a Civil Service of a Sta t e or holds a civil post under th e Union or a Sta t e shall be dismissed or remove d by an authority subordinate t o that by which h e was appointed. Since a contr a ctual employee is not holding a civil post, the protection available under Art i cle 311 cannot be extended t o him/her. The o nly protection which would be available to such an employe e would be base d on the principles of fairness an d reasonableness which woul d be required in any state action in order to o bviate itself from the vice o f arbitrariness u n der Article 14 of the Constitu t ion. In a matter of contractua l appointment, w hat would be required would be an opportunity be given t o employee con c erned to respond to the natu r e of mis-conduct attributed t o him/her. The version of the employee will ha v e to be taken into consideratio n before an appr o priate decision is taken by th e employer either to continue o r interfere with the contractual employment/. The employer will also be a t liberty to take a n appropriate decision whether or not to extend the contractua l engagement of such employee in view of the a llegations made against him/he r with regard to his/her character or his/her im p lication in an act of crime. I n such circumst a nces, we are of the view that t he judgment passed by learne d

Jyoti 2025.09.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No.2902 of 2024 (O&M) -6Single Judge, i nterfering with the order of th e authority dated 27.04.2021 o n account of it b e ing in violation of Article 311( 2 ) of the Constitution cannot b e sustained. The judgment of learned Single Ju d ge for such reasons cannot b e allowed to be a ccepted.

H o wever, we find that in the f acts of the present case, th e respondent-pet i tioner was not even confron t ed with the allegations mad e against her bef o re discontinuing her contractu a l employment. The action take n against the res p ondent-petitioner by the appell a nts, therefore, cannot be said t o be inconformi t y with the principles of fair n ess and reasonableness whic h would be expected in an state action. For such reason, the order date d 27.04.2021 ca n not be sustained. Though for a different reason, we therefore , do not interfer e with the part of order of the le a rned Single Judge whereby, th e order dated 24.07.2021 has been set aside. Ho w ever, considering the nature o f appointment o f fered to the respondent-petiti o ner, the relief of reinstatemen t cannot be exte n ded to her as a natural conseq u ence of setting aside the orde r dated 27.04.2021. This is particularly so as a contractual engagement of th e respondent-pet i tioner has otherwise come to a n end on 31.03.2021. In the fact s of the case, w e permit to the appellants to aff o rd an opportunity of hearing t o the responden t -petitioner and thereafter pas s afresh order with regard t o extension of h e r contractual appointment with i n a period of 6 weeks from th e date of present a tion 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 2024 (O&M) -7-

In view of the above observation s , the present appeal is dispose d

of.

P e nding application, if any, also s t ands disposed of.

(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGsE

September 04, 2025

(ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE

Jyoti-IV

Whether speaking/reasoned: Ye s /No. Whether reportable : Ye s /No

Jyoti 2025.09.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the order dated 27.04.2021 discontinuing the respondent-petitioner's contractual engagement, made on account of her implication in FIR No.121 dated 23.02.2021, was stigmatic and sustainable in the absence of a departmental inquiry and opportunity of hearing, even in a contractual employment.¶5
The court held
In the facts of the present case, the respondent-petitioner was not even confronted with the allegations made against her before discontinuing her contractual employment; the action taken by the appellants was therefore not in conformity with the principles of fairness and reasonableness expected of state action, and for such reason the order dated 27.04.2021 cannot be sustained.ratio¶8
2.
Whether the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India extends to a contractual employee so as to sustain the learned Single Judge's interference with the discontinuation order on the ground of violation of Article 311(2).¶7
The court held
The protection under Article 311 of the Constitution is not available to a contractual employee: Article 311(1) confines protection to members of the civil services and persons holding civil posts, and since a contractual employee is not holding a civil post, that protection cannot be extended to him/her; the protection available instead is based on principles of fairness and reasonableness required of state action so as to avoid arbitrariness under Article 14.ratio¶7
3.
Whether Clause 6 of the contract of engagement applied to the respondent-petitioner's case so as to justify the discontinuation, given that her contractual engagement was renewed from time to time and the last contract carried a differently worded Clause 6.¶6
The court held
On the facts of the case, Clause 6 of the contract of engagement (requiring a declaration that the employee is not serving in any other department or convicted by a court) had no applicability, since the contractual engagement was renewed from time to time and, as per the last contract of employment, Clause 6 was differently worded, granting the employer only an opportunity to terminate the services of the contractual employee in case of mis-conduct or unsatisfactory poor performance.ratio¶6
4.
Whether reinstatement follows as a natural consequence of setting aside the discontinuation order where the appointment was contractual and the engagement had otherwise come to an end on 31.03.2021.¶1
The court held
Considering the nature of the contractual appointment, the relief of reinstatement cannot be extended to the respondent-petitioner as a natural consequence of setting aside the order dated 27.04.2021, particularly as her contractual engagement had otherwise come to an end on 31.03.2021.ratio¶8