RANCHI, India, June 13 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on May 12:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This I.A. seeks condonation of delay of 98 days in instituting this Appeal. We have perused the averments in the I.A. and the affidavit in support of the averments. Sufficient cause has been made out.

3. Therefore, we condone the delay and dispose of the I.A. L.P.A. No. 166 of 2025

4. By a separate order, we have condoned the delay and now, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have heard them on the merits of the appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants states that the respondent was only a contractual employee and the termination was not stigmatic. He further points out that the show cause notice was already issued and upon considering the respondent's response, his services were discontinued. He submitted that there was no requirement of holding any enquiry under such circumstances and therefore, the reasoning in the impugned order warrants interference.

6. The respondent was only a contractual employee. However, his services were discontinued by passing an order dated 13.08.2021 which refers to the allegations against the respondent. The order of discontinuance/termination, does appear to be stigmatic. The record shows that a District Health Committee, Dumka did enquire into the allegations against the respondent and gave their opinion. Based on this opinion, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent and upon receipt of a reply, the Project Director terminated the services of the respondent. Though, there was some semblance of procedure adopted, the learned Single Judge has correctly held that such procedure was not consistent with principles of natural justice or fairplay. Neither was any copy of the complaint furnished to the respondent nor was the respondent given any opportunity to lead any evidence in defence or comment upon the opinion of the District Health Committee.

7. By the impugned order, the respondent had been directed to be reinstated on the same terms and conditions on which he was working earlier. At the same time, the appellants have been granted specific liberty to hold a fresh enquiry and pass a fresh order, if so advised. The impugned order was made on 25.10.2024 and by now, an enquiry could have always be held and even concluded instead of simply pursuing this appeal.

8. In the meantime, the respondent has already been reinstated on same terms and conditions on which he was working earlier. Therefore, we see no good ground to entertain this appeal. However, we reiterate the liberty granted to the appellants by the learned Single Judge regarding holding a fresh enquiry against the respondent and passing a fresh order, if so advised.

9. With the above reasons, we dismiss this appeal, but with liberty in the above terms. No costs.

10. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.