J&K and Ladakh High Court quashes stigmatic termination of contractual anaesthetist, upholds principles of natural justice

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has strongly rebuked the government for terminating the services of a contractual Anaesthetist by branding her "vulnerable" and "unsuitable for government service"—without holding any inquiry or issuing a show-cause notice. Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the matter, held that such stigmatic remarks amount to a punitive finding and are unsustainable in law in the absence of adherence to the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a medical doctor appointed as a contractual Anaesthetist, was abruptly terminated via a communication dated 20.02.2023. The termination order contained stigmatic observations on her character and suitability for government service, effectively blacklisting her from future employment in the public sector.

Justice Dhar emphasized that although the petitioner was engaged on a contractual basis, the nature of the termination—grounded in derogatory remarks—constituted a stigmatic dismissal. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in UP SRTC v. Brijesh Kumar, the Court reaffirmed that even contractual employees are entitled to procedural fairness when termination impairs their reputation or future employment prospects.

The Court held - “Termination on grounds that cast aspersions on character or suitability amounts to stigmatic dismissal, which cannot be sustained in law unless the employee is given a fair chance to defend herself.”

Noting that no inquiry was conducted and no opportunity to be heard was afforded to the petitioner, the Court declared the termination communication legally infirm and violative of the principles of natural justice.

While the Court declined to order reinstatement—citing the discontinuation of the scheme under which the petitioner was appointed—it clarified that the impugned communication dated 20.02.2023:

“...shall not come in the way of the petitioner’s getting employment in future.”

Additionally, the Court directed the release of the petitioner’s unpaid salary from July 2022 to February 2023, observing that there was no evidence to show that she had been remunerated for her services during that period. The Court held:

“The respondents were availing the services of the petitioner on one hand and denying salary to her on the other,”
— a practice it found to be in violation of constitutional protections relating to dignity, equal treatment, and fair remuneration.

The Court allowed the petition with the following directions:

1. The stigmatic remarks in the termination communication dated 20.02.2023 shall not prejudice the petitioner’s future employment.
2. One month’s salary shall be paid in lieu of notice.
3. Unpaid wages for the period from July 2022 to February 2023 shall be disbursed within two months.
4. Failing timely payment, the outstanding amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

The judgment serves as a firm reaffirmation of the constitutional mandate for procedural fairness, even in cases involving contractual appointments. The Court underscored that stigmatic termination, absent due process, amounts to a form of character assassination without trial, which is legally impermissible.