The Rajasthan High Court has held that the entire procedure adopted by the respondents-authority in terminating the petitioner without an enquiry is unknown to the law and has caused undue hardship and mental agony to the petitioner while also resulting in loss to the exchequer of the State. Justice Munnuri Laxman observed that there cannot be any stigmatic termination by ordering an enquiry and that basing on such enquiry a revocation of the termination order giving zero effect to the termination is an action which is contrary to law. The Court further noted that an illegal procedure has been adopted which is unknown to law and that though the revocation is done, from the material on record this Court feels that the termination order is unsustainable in the eye of law and there cannot be any termination without an enquiry. Ordering enquiry after termination and basing on such enquiry again revoking the termination order giving zero effect is an action which is contrary to law and such an action resulted undue hardship and mental agony to the petitioner and also caused loss to exchequer of the State.
The petitioner was working as a Senior Treatment Supervisor in the Medical and Health Department on contractual basis. By the impugned order dated 15.03.2020 the petitioner’s services were terminated pending enquiry on the allegation that the petitioner circulated fake news by messaging that some COVID-19 positive patients were admitted and taking treatment in the hospital. In this regard an FIR was also registered and based on the said FIR he was terminated. It is stated that subsequently an enquiry was held and in the said enquiry the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. Thereby an order of revocation has been passed by the respondents dated 24.07.2022 giving zero effect to the order of termination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire procedure adopted by the respondents-Authority in terminating the petitioner without an enquiry is also stigmatic. Subsequently on the basis of findings of said enquiry a revocation of termination order was passed by giving zero effect to the termination. Thereby he is entitled for continuity in service in between the date of termination to the date of revocation including the period he worked in pursuance of interim directions. According to him the termination order is unsustainable under law even though the said order has been revoked.
Learned counsel for the respondents tried to defend their action by contending that the termination order has been passed by ordering an enquiry and basing on the enquiry revocation order has been passed giving zero effect. This Court having gone through the background of the facts feels that the entire procedure adopted by the respondents-Authority is unknown to the law. There cannot be any stigmatic termination by ordering an enquiry. Basing on such enquiry revocation of such a termination order is passed. An illegal procedure has been adopted which is unknown to law. Though the revocation is done from the material on record this Court feels that the termination order is unsustainable in the eye of law and there cannot be any termination without an enquiry. Ordering enquiry after termination and basing on such enquiry again revoking the termination order giving zero effect is an action which is contrary to law. Such an action resulted undue hardship and mental agony to the petitioner and also caused loss to exchequer of the State. Therefore the present writ petition is required to be allowed and the entire procedure adopted by the respondents-Authority is required to be declared illegal and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
In the result this writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner; the impugned order of termination is revoked and the procedure adopted is declared illegal and the same is set aside. The petitioner was terminated on 15.03.2020 and the interim order was granted by this Court on 12.06.2020 therefore the period of such absence shall be treated as a period on duty and he is entitled for all the benefits including the pay as well as continuity of service and the same is re-enforced by the order of revocation. The State Government is given liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondents-Authority for passing such kind of orders which is unknown to law and recover the loss if any caused to the exchequer by duly giving notice to the concerned Authority who passed the order. All pending application(s) if any stand disposed of.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5898/2020
Date of Judgment: 15 April 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 