The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that termination of a contractual employee after an internal enquiry finds her innocent violates statutory protections under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative action must conform to statutory safeguards, particularly where innocence has been formally established.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rama Atwal, was employed as a contractual employee by the Haryana State Veterinary Department (HSVP). An internal enquiry was initiated against her on allegations of misconduct. Following the enquiry, an Action Taken Report dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-7) concluded that she was found innocent. Despite this finding, the respondent authorities issued an order dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure P-6) terminating her services. The petitioner challenged this termination as violative of the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, and the Deployment of Contractual Persons Policy, 2022.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was engaged on a contractual basis with HSVP under the Deployment of Contractual Persons Policy, 2022
- An internal enquiry was conducted into allegations of misconduct against her
- The Action Taken Report dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-7) explicitly recorded her as "found innocent"
- Despite the innocence finding, an order of termination was passed on 13.02.2026 (Annexure P-6)
- The termination order was issued by respondent No.4, who is not the appointing authority
- The appointing authority, as per statutory framework, is respondent No.3
- The petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure P-8) seeking reinstatement and clarification, which remained undecided
Procedural History
- 13.02.2026: Termination order issued by respondent No.4
- 10.03.2026: Action Taken Report issued, finding petitioner innocent
- 25.03.2026: Petitioner submitted representation seeking reinstatement and decision on her status
- 11.04.2026: Civil Writ Petition No. 11596 of 2026 filed before the High Court
- 20.04.2026: Court heard arguments; respondents sought time to obtain instructions
- 28.04.2026: Court delivered final order disposing of the petition
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner:
- Argued that the termination order dated 13.02.2026 was illegal as it was passed after the internal enquiry had exonerated her
- Contended that respondent No.4 lacked jurisdiction to terminate her services; only respondent No.3, the appointing authority, had such power
- Relied on Sections 2 and 4 of the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, which guarantee continuity of service unless a valid disciplinary proceeding concludes with punishment
- Invoked Rule 5.8 of the Deployment of Contractual Persons Policy, 2022, which prohibits termination without due process
For the Respondents:
- Did not contest the finding of innocence in the internal enquiry
- Submitted that any disciplinary action, if initiated, must strictly follow the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016
- Did not dispute that respondent No.4 was not the appointing authority
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the termination order dated 13.02.2026
- Reinstatement with continuity of service and all consequential benefits
- Direction to decide her representation dated 25.03.2026
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether termination of a contractual employee is lawful under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 when an internal enquiry has conclusively found her innocent, and the order was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Sections 2 and 4 of the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, which provide that a contractual employee found innocent in an internal enquiry cannot be terminated without following due process under the Act. She argued that the Act creates a statutory right to security of service, and termination after exoneration violates this right. She further cited Rule 5.8 of the Deployment of Contractual Persons Policy, 2022, which mandates procedural fairness and prohibits punitive action without a valid inquiry. The petitioner emphasized that the termination order was issued by respondent No.4, who is not the appointing authority, rendering it ultra vires.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not dispute the finding of innocence or the jurisdictional defect. They conceded that any disciplinary action must be initiated strictly in accordance with the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016, and that the termination order was procedurally flawed. Their submission focused on the need to follow due process if a fresh disciplinary proceeding were to be initiated.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, particularly Sections 2 and 4, which establish that a contractual employee who is found innocent in an internal enquiry is entitled to continue in service. The Court noted that the Act was enacted to provide security of service to contractual employees, who form a significant part of the state workforce, and that its provisions must be interpreted liberally in their favor.
"The finding of innocence in an internal enquiry under the Act of 2024 is not a mere procedural formality; it is a substantive determination that negates the basis for termination."
The Court further held that the termination order dated 13.02.2026 was passed by respondent No.4, who is not the appointing authority as defined under the Act. The power to terminate lies exclusively with the appointing authority, respondent No.3. The Court emphasized that jurisdictional error renders the order void ab initio.
The Court also noted that the petitioner’s representation dated 25.03.2026 remained pending, and the state had a duty to decide it expeditiously. The Court rejected any notion that innocence could be overridden by administrative convenience or procedural delay.
The Verdict
The Court set aside the termination order dated 13.02.2026 as illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 25.03.2026 within four weeks. No fresh disciplinary action may be initiated unless strictly in accordance with the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016, and the Act of 2024.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Innocence in Internal Enquiry Bars Termination
- Practitioners must argue that any termination after an internal enquiry finds an employee innocent is per se illegal under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024
- The finding of innocence is not subject to administrative override or reconsideration without a fresh, valid disciplinary proceeding
- Employers cannot use procedural delays or pending representations to justify continued non-reinstatement
Jurisdictional Authority Is Non-Negotiable
- Only the appointing authority may terminate contractual employees under the Act
- Orders passed by subordinate or unauthorized officers are void and subject to immediate quashing
- Practitioners should routinely verify the identity of the issuing authority in termination orders
Representation Must Be Decided Promptly
- Pending representations seeking reinstatement or clarification must be decided within a reasonable time
- Failure to decide such representations may attract writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- A delay of more than four weeks may now be considered unreasonable in light of this judgment
