Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Partha Pratim Saikia on 20 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010065822025
2025:GAU-
AS:11157-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/256/2025
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT.,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006
2: THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT.
JURIPAR
PANJABARI GUWAHATI- 37
3: THE DIRECTOR
THE STATE INSTITUTE OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
G.S. ROAD
KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22
4: THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
DRDA
MORIGAON
ASSAM PIN-788004
5: THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD
MORIGAON ASSAM
6: THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
LAHARIGHAT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
DISTRICT-MORIGAON
ASSAM
7: THE TULSHIBARI GAON PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VILLAGE- TULSHIBARI
P.O. TENGAGURI
Page No.# 2/5
DISTRICT-MORIGAON
ASSAM
VERSUS
PARTHA PRATIM SAIKIA
S/O SARAT CHANDRA SAIKIA,
VILL- NIZ GERUA, P.O.- GERUA GAON,
P.S.- BHURAGAON, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782121
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MORIGAON DISTRICT
ASSAM
For the appellants : Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
20-08-2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.)
The respondent/Partha Pratim Saikia is a contractual employee, who has
been terminated from service without issuance of any show-cause notice to him
even though the order of termination prima facie was stigmatic.
2. The records reveal that the respondent was engaged as an Accountant-
cum-Computer Operator in Gelabil Gaon Panchayat of Golaghat South
Development Block of Golaghat district on contractual basis for a period of six
months. After the expiry of the period of six months, without there being any
renewal of the contract, he continued in service as if it were an automatic
renewal of the contract beyond the period of six months. Later, the respondent
again entered into another contractual engagement for a further period of six
months.
Page No.# 3/5
3. In the meantime, a complaint was lodged against him for having indulged
in malpractices like forging job cards and unauthorisedly withdrawing money
from the accounts of beneficiaries and misappropriating the same. An FIR was
lodged against him, in which he was arrested but bailed out.
4. Immediately thereafter, the order of termination of his service was issued
by the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam on
28.06.2023, terminating his contractual engagement.
5. The letter of termination reveals that his arrest was an embarrassment to
the employer.
6. No show-cause notice, as noted above, was issued to him. Considering the
fact that the recital in the termination order was stigmatic in nature, the learned
Single Judge, relying on the decisions of this Court in Ali Ahmed Barbhuiya
vs. State of Assam and 6 others [WP(C) No.2977/2023] and Sailendra
Bora vs. State of Assam & 2 others [WP(C) No.6680/2022] held that
even though the respondent was on contractual appointment for a limited
period, but if the order of termination was stigmatic, it had to be preceded by a
show-cause notice eliciting his reply and only thereafter any decision could have
been taken.
7. The State of Assam has preferred an appeal against the afore-noted
judgment of the learned Single Judge on the ground that in contractual
employment, the terms of the agreement are required to be followed and if
there is no provision for serving any show-cause notice to a contractual
employee, that ought not to be insisted for.
8. The other ground raised by the appellant/State is that though there is a
Page No.# 4/5
recital in the termination order about the respondent having caused
embarrassment to the employer because of his arrest in a criminal case but that
was only one of the grounds and not the basic foundation for termination.
9. With reference to several decisions of the Supreme Court, the learned
Advocate for the appellant/State has submitted that there would be no strict
requirement of issuance of a show-cause notice before terminating a contractual
employment.
10. After having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, we are of the
considered view that even in contractual employment, if the order of
termination is stigmatic, it has to be preceded by a show-cause notice, or else it
would be bad in the eyes of law. If the service of a contractual employee is
terminated on account of any misconduct and that also without holding any
regular enquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him, the show-cause
notice to him is a must.
11. In the present case, the termination order being apparently stigmatic,
there could not have been denial of the principle of natural justice of giving him
a hearing and permitting him to place his case on record.
12. Even otherwise, we find that by the judgment impugned in the present
appeal, the learned Single Judge, though has set aside the order of termination
and has directed for reinstatement of the respondent in service within 3(three)
weeks from the date of passing of the order, but he has made it only subject to
the decision of the State to proceed against the respondent afresh after
complying with due process of law, including adherence to the principle of
natural justice; in which event it would be open for the State to take further
Page No.# 5/5
consequential action in the matter, as may be deemed fit and proper under the
law.
13. If the State would not like to have the services of the respondent any
more for whatever reason, the contract may not be renewed, or he be given a
notice to explain the cause and thereafter a decision be taken.
14. For the afore-noted reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this
case, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the judgment of the
learned Single Judge.
The appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
