Patna High Court
Hemlata Kumari SinghversusThe Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA)
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
A termination order that is stigmatic and issued without a proper inquiry or hearing is illegal and must be set aside, even for contractual employees protected by the 2018 circular.
Summary
The petitioner, Hemlata Kumari Singh, a contractual Area Manager with the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), was served a termination notice on 09‑09‑2023 alleging misconduct, incompetence and indiscipline and the termination was upheld by an appellate order on 29‑05‑2024. She filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the termination notice, the appellate order, and the underlying memo, alleging violation of natural‑justice principles, Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and the protective circular issued by the Government of Bihar (Memo No. 12534/2018). The respondents contended that the termination was a simple contractual termination ("termination simpliciter") permissible under the contract and that the petition was not maintainable. The Court examined the contractual terms, the 2018 circular protecting contractual employees, and prior decisions (Anuj Shuckla, Alok Kumar Gupta, etc.) and held that the termination was stigmatic because no proper inquiry or hearing was afforded. Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence on stigmatic termination, the Court quashed both the termination notice and the appellate order and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits. The petition was allowed and the respondents were ordered to reinstate the petitioner within three months and pay any arrears.
Issues considered
- Whether the termination of a contractual employee without a departmental inquiry and opportunity of hearing is violative of natural‑justice principles and constitutional guarantees.
- Whether the protective circular (Memo No. 12534/2018) extends to contractual employees of BIADA, rendering the termination illegal.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the termination notice not being previously challenged in a civil suit.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 14, Article 16, Article 21
Subjects
- contractual employee
- termination
- stigmatic order
- natural justice
- service law
- quashing order
- reinstatement
- Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11079 of 2024
======================================================
Hemlata Kumari Singh D/o Shri Madan Mohan Singh, Resident of Kashturi
Chak (Rasen Chak), Naya Ganw, Saran, Bihar-841217.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) Udyog Bhawan,
Gandhi Maidan, Patna through its Managing Director, 1st Floor, Udyog
Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
2. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development
Authority (BIADA), Udyog Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
3. The Joint Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority
Udyog Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan, Patna (BIADA), Udyog Bhawan, Gandhi
Maidan, Patna.
4. The Executive Director, Operations Bihar Industrial Area Development
Authority (BIADA), Patna, Udyog Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
5. The Deputy General Manager, Hajipur Cluster, Bihar Industrial Area
Development Authority (BIADA), Udyog Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Bibhuti Narayan, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-01-2026
Heard learned Senior counsel Mr. Sanjay Singh
assisted by Mr. Bibhuti Narayan, Advocate for the petitioner and
learned counsel Mr. Ayush Kumar assisted by Mr. Kanishka
Shankar, Advocate for the Bihar Industrial Area Development
Authority (in short ‘BIADA’).
Re:- I.A. No. 1 of 2025, I.A. No. 2 of 2025 & I.A.
No. 3 of 2025
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that there are three interlocutory applications mentioned above.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
2/22
Senior counsel submits that he is not pressing any of the said
I.A.
2. As such, I.A. No. 1 of 2025, I.A. No. 2 of 2025 &
I.A. No. 3 of 2025, all are hereby dismissed as not pressed.
Re:- C.W.J.C. No. 11079 of 2024
The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief/s:-
“I. For quashing the order dated
29.05.2024 passed in Appeal Case
No. 03/2023, by the Respondent No.
2, whereby and where under the
Appeal filed by the Petitioner has
been dismissed in a mechanical,
arbitrary, whimsical, pick and choose
manner, whereas the similarly
situated coterminous contractual
employees has been reinstated
considering the fact that the
termination of the Petitioner is
'termination stigmatic’ and without
compliance of the principles of
natural justice, service jurisprudence
and in teeth of the service procedure
laid down by the decision of the
Cabinet contained in Memo No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
3/22
12534 dated 17.09.2018 (High Level
Committee), illegal, arbitrary,
malicious decision has been taken,
which has no legs to stand in the eyes
of law.
II. For quashing the Order/Memo No.
5794/I/737Estt/BIADA/2023 dated
09.09.2023 issued by Executive
Director (Operations), BIADA, Patna
whereby the contractual service of the
Petitioner has abruptly been brought
to an end by the Bihar Industrial Area
Development Authority (herein after
referred to as BIADA) on 09.09.2023
in most arbitrary, whimsical manner
without compliance of the principles
of natural justice and in complete
violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of
the Constitution of India, equity and
against all the canons of justice.
III. For the issuance of the direction
in the nature of mandamus allowing
Restituo in integrum to her post with
all consequential benefits.
IV. For any other relief or reliefs for
which the petitioner be found entitled
in the eye of law.”
2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the order dated 29.05.2024 in Service Appeal No. 03 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
4/22
2023 passed by the Respondent no.2 dismissing the petitioner
has been made in a mechanical, arbitrary, whimsical, pick and
choose manner and it is basically a ‘termination stigmatic’
without following the service jurisprudence and in gross
violation of principles of natural justice. Senior counsel submits
that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Area Manager
vide letter dated 27.01.2023 in the cluster office Hajipur on
probation. Senior counsel submits that during the service, a
termination notice was served to the petitioner dated 09.09.2023
in which allegation of misconduct, incompetency and
indiscipline have been alleged in the light of Clause 2.7(i) and
(iii) of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority
(Financial, Service and Technical) Regulations, 2007. Senior
counsel submits that it is an admitted position that the petitioner
is the contractual employee, but the High Level Committee of
the Government of Bihar vide Memo No. 12534 dated
17.09.2018 has protected the services of contractual employees.
In this regard, the said circular/resolution has been annexed in
the writ petition. Senior counsel further submits that the terms of
agreement has been annexed by way of 2nd supplementary
affidavit in which it has been stated that appointment of the
petitioner has taken place on contractual basis and according to
Clause 6, right has been given to the second party of the contract
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
5/22
that the second party may also terminate the contract of the first
party by giving two months notice or two months remuneration
in lieu thereof. Senior counsel submits that it is true that the
petitioner is a contractual employee but, after the issuance of the
said circular for protection of the contractual employee issued by
the General Administrative Department, Government of Bihar, it
is applicable to the contractual employees of the industry
department also including BIADA. The said circular is part of
the contract.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further
submits that this Hon’ble Court has pleased to decide the case
based on the similarly situated persons as like that of petitioner.
Firstly, vide order dated 10.02.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
18494 of 2024 (Anuj Shuckla Vs. The BIADA & Ors.), wherein
the petitioner who was appointed on contractual basis and
removed on the ground of misconduct, has been protected by
this Hon’ble Court. And the respondents were directed to
reinstate the services of the petitioner forthwith and the
petitioner was entitled for all applicable consequential benefits.
Secondly, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied on
another judgment dated 30.06.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
10101 of 2024 (Alok Kumar Gupta Vs. The BIADA & Ors.), in
which the petitioner was appointed on the post of Executive on
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
6/22
contractual basis in the year 2007 and subsequently, by making
allegation, he was removed from the service. But, in that case
also, the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner
within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that
order. Senior counsel further submits that after issuance of the
said notice i.e. termination notice, the petitioner has preferred
appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the said
termination notice on which the Appellate Authority has passed
final order on 29.05.2024 in Service Appeal No. 03 of 2023.
Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition
challenging the said termination notice as well as the appellate
order. Senior counsel further submits that his case is squarely
covered by the ratio laid down in the above mentioned two cases
i.e. Anuj Shuckla (supra) and Alok Kumar Gupta (supra) and
hence, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same relief as
the termination notice and the appellate order, both are stigmatic
in nature. Therefore, the petitioner need the said protection that
being a contractual employee, the said stigma may not continue
and the petitioner may be in a position to save her career in
future.
4. Learned counsel appearing for BIADA on the
other hand submits that the present writ petition is not
maintainable, due to the reason that the termination order has not
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
7/22
been challenged, as the termination order has been passed on
09.10.2023. He further submits that since, termination order has
not been challenged before this Court, therefore, the writ petition
is not maintainable itself. He submits that the appointment of the
petitioner is based on contractual basis and according to the
terms of agreement/contract in Clause 6, 7, 8 & 9, the petitioner
is not entitled for any relief. He further submits that this
termination is not stigmatic, rather, it is ‘termination simpliciter’
and such type of termination notice or termination shall not
affect the petitioner in future in any manner. Counsel relied on a
judgment passed by this Court in case of Sanjeev Ranjan Vs.
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary & Ors. reported
in 2024 (4) PLJR 279 and submits that the services of the
petitioner may be terminated for misconduct, negligence,
inefficiency or other disqualification and those may be the
motive or inducing factor which influences the Government to
take action under the terms of the contract of the employment or
service rule, if the right exists under the contract or the rule to
terminate the services, the motive operating on the mind of
employer is irrelevant and the termination is not a punishment.
Counsel further relied on a judgment of Appar Apar Singh Vs.
The State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (1970) 3 SCC 338 and
Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India reported in AIR
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
8/22
1958 SC 36, which are part and parcel of the reported judgment
of Sanjeev Ranjan (supra) mentioned in para 29 & 30.
5. Learned counsel for BIADA, upon making
submissions on the above points, submits that in the background
of his submissions, the present writ petition is not maintainable
at all. He further submits that in light of the judgments cited by
him, and even on merits, the petitioner’s case is fit to be
dismissed, as the said termination is a “termination simpliciter”
and, in accordance with the terms of the contract, the petitioner
has been removed.
6. After hearing the parties, there are certain
relevant facts which are necessary to be discussed here. It is an
admitted position that the termination notice and the appellate
order have been challenged. The termination notice is of dated
09.09.2023 and the appellate order has been passed on
29.05.2024.
7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
categorically mentioned that no termination letter has been
served which has been alleged by learned counsel for the
BIADA. The said termination letter has not been attached by the
BIADA in the counter affidavit nor any factual matrix has come
in the order of appeal that separate termination letter has been
issued.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
9/22
8. It is a most surprising fact for this Court that the
BIADA has neither placed the said termination letter before the
Appellate Court nor placed before this Court and only at the
time of final argument, it is being submitted that there is a
termination order. What shall be the effect of that letter, shall be
discussed later on.
9. This Court after going through the contractual
terms and conditions agrees that the contractual employees have
a limited right, but it is also true that the said circular contained
in Memo No. 12534 dated 17.09.2018 has been issued by the
State of Bihar itself and is applicable for the employees of
BIADA including the petitioner. Therefore, in-spite of the fact
that the petitioner is a contractual employee according to the
said circular, there is a protection in favour of the petitioner. It is
true that the petitioner is a contractual employee and having no
right of regularization, but the termination letter indicates that
the petitioner has been terminated on the ground of misconduct,
incompetency and indiscipline and that in the opinion of the
Court is a stigma by which the petitioner shall be affected
throughout her career, if not protected by the same.
10. It transpires to this Court that, for arriving at a
finding of proved misconduct, incompetence, and indiscipline,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
10/22
no procedure was adopted and no opportunity was granted to the
petitioner and the BIADA reached on the said conclusion. And
only due to this reason, this Court, in the case of Alok Kumar
Gupta (supra), finds that it’s para 7 to 12 are very much
relevant, which are quoted herein below:-
“7. Undisputedly, the petitioner
herein was appointed on contractual
basis in the year, 2007 and was
getting continuous extension of his
services. Show cause notice
(Annexure P/1) issued to the
petitioner shows that six allegations
regarding irregularities have been
levelled against him including
disobedience of senior officers. Thus,
it is quite clear that allegation of
misconduct was made against the
petitioner and on the ground of
misconduct only, he has been
terminated. The order of termination
clearly shows that it has been passed
making stigma against the petitioner
regarding his misconduct.
8. The Supreme Court, in the case of
Dr Vijaykumaran CPV (supra)
observed and held in paragraphs 8,
10, 11 and 13 as under:
“8. It is well-established position that
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
11/22
the material which amounts to stigma
need not be contained in the order of
termination of the probationer, but
might be contained in “any document
referred to in the termination order”.
Such reference may inevitably affect
the future prospects of the incumbent
and if so, the order must be construed
as ex facie stigmatic order of
termination. … … …
10. In Pavanendra Narayan Verma v
Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical
Sciences, the Court observed thus:
(SCC p 528, para 21)
“21. One of the judicially evolved
tests to determine whether in
substance an order of termination is
punitive is to see whether prior to the
termination there was (a) a full-scale
formal enquiry (b) into allegations
involving moral turpitude or
misconduct which (c) culminated in a
finding of guilt. If all three factors are
present the termination has been held
to be punitive irrespective of the form
of the termination order. Conversely if
any one of the three factors is
missing, the termination has been
upheld.”
11. In the present case, all the three
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
12/22
elements are attracted, as a result of
which it must follow that the stated
order is ex facie stigmatic and
punitive. Such an order could be
issued only after subjecting the
incumbent to a regular inquiry as per
the service rules. … … …
13. …, we have no hesitation in
concluding that the impugned
termination order dated 30.11.2017 is
illegal being ex facie stigmatic as it
has been issued without subjecting the
appellant to a regular inquiry as pe
the service rules. … … …”
9. In the light of above observation
made by the Supreme Court and on
examination of the facts of this case
that a stigmatic order against the
petitioner has been passed, therefore,
a full fledged departmental enquiry
was required. Thus, this Court finds
that the order impugned passed by the
authorities are liable to be set aside.
10. Therefore, both the orders
impugned dated 30.09.2023 and
29.05.2024 are hereby quashed.
11. The petition is allowed.
12. Respondents are directed to
reinstate the petitioner within three
months from the date of receipt of a
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
13/22
copy of this order.”
11. And further in case of Anuj Shuckla (supra),
para 7 to 15 are very much relevant which are quoted herein
below:-
“7. Undisputedly, the petitioner herein
was appointed on contractual basis in
the year, 2009 and was getting
extension of his services till 2022.
From bare perusal of the impugned
order of termination (Annexure 13), it
transpires that the Authority arrived
on the conclusion that all the charges
levelled against the petitioner are
proved and it was found that the
petitioner committed misconduct, as
contained in Clauses 2.7 (i) (iii) (xii)
of the 2007 Regulations and invoking
Clause 1.5 (b) (iv) of the 2007
Regulations, services of the petitioner
have been terminated. Show cause
notice (Annexure P/5) issued to the
petitioner further shows that there
were eight allegations levelled
against him regarding irregularities
committed by him including
disobedience of the superior officers.
Thus, it is quite clear that an
allegation of misconduct was made
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
14/22
against the petitioner and on the
ground of misconduct, as contained in
Clause 2.7 (i) (iii) (xii) of the 2007
Regulations, petitioner has been
terminated mentioning the fact that
misconduct has been proved against
him. Thus, the order of termination
clearly shows that it has been passed
making certain stigma against the
petitioner regarding his misconduct.
8. Dealing with the issue, the Supreme
Court, in the case of Dr
Vijaykumaran CPV (supra) observed
and held in paragraphs 8, 10, 11 and
13 as under:
“8. It is well-established position that
the material which amounts to stigma
need not be contained in the order of
termination of the probationer, but
might be contained in “any document
referred to in the termination order”.
Such reference may inevitably affect
the future prospects of the incumbent
and if so, the order must be construed
as ex facie stigmatic order of
termination. … … …
10. In Pavanendra Narayan Verma v
Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical
Sciences, the Court observed thus:
(SCC p 528, para 21)
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
15/22
“21. One of the judicially evolved
tests to determine whether in
substance an order of termination is
punitive is to see whether prior to the
termination there was (a) a full-scale
formal enquiry (b) into allegations
involving moral turpitude or
misconduct which (c) culminated in a
finding of guilt. If all three factors are
present the termination has been held
to be punitive irrespective of the form
of the termination order. Conversely if
any one of the three factors is
missing, the termination has been
upheld.”
11. In the present case, all the three
elements are attracted, as a result of
which it must follow that the stated
order is ex facie stigmatic and
punitive. Such an order could be
issued only after subjecting the
incumbent to a regular inquiry as per
the service rules. … … …
13. …, we have no hesitation in
concluding that the impugned
termination order dated 30.11.2017 is
illegal being ex facie stigmatic as it
has been issued without subjecting the
appellant to a regular inquiry as pe
the service rules. … … …”
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
16/22
9. In the light of above observation
made by the Supreme Court, on
examination of the facts of this case in
hand, it is clear that a stigmatic order
of termination has been passed
against the petitioner and, therefore, a
full fledged departmental enquiry was
required.
10. Perusal of the order further shows
that reply of show cause submitted by
the petitioner has not been considered
by the Authority at all. In his reply to
the show cause, the petitioner replied
each and every allegations levelled
against him but the Authority did not
bother to mention any of the grounds
taken by him in his reply. It would be
appropriate to reproduce the
concluding part of the impugned
order here which reads thus: “mi;qZDRk
xfBr vkjksiksa ij i=kad 5991 fnukad 16-09-
23 }kjk Jh 'kqDyk ls Li"Vhdj.k dh ekax djrs
gq, viuk i{k j[kus dk volj iznku fd;k
x;kA Jh 'kqDyk }kjk Li"Vhdj.k fnukad 22-09-
23 izLrqr fd;k x;k ijarq Jh 'kqDyk }kjk
lefiZr Li"Vhdj.k izkf/kdkj }kjk vlarks"ktud
ik;k x;kA Jh 'kqDyk vius fo:) xfBr
vkjksiksa dks [kf.Mr djus esa foQYk gq, gSaA vr%
vfHkysf[k; lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij Jh 'kqDyk ds
fo:) xfBr vkjksi lgh fl) gksrs gSaA”
11. Considering the submissions of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
17/22
learned counsel for the parties and
the material available on record, as
discussed above, I find that as the
impugned order has been passed by
the Authority is a stigmatic order,
therefore, as observed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Dr Vijaykumaran
CPV (supra), a full fledged
departmental enquiry was required
but in this case, it was not done.
Further, the petitioner has not been
provided any proper opportunity of
hearing in this case. The Authority,
without recording statement of any
witness and without considering the
reply of show cause submitted by the
petitioner, arrived on the conclusion
that the charges levelled against him
are proved. The Appellate Authority
also did not consider this aspect.
Hence, both the orders dated
20.10.2023 passed by the Executive
Director (Annexure P/13) and the
order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the
Chairman which has been
communicated to the petitioner vide
Annexure P/16 are liable to be
quashed.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
18/22
13. The impugned orders dated
20.10.2023 and 04.09.2024 are
quashed.
14. Respondents are directed to
reinstate the services of the petitioner
forthwith.
15. The petitioner is entitled to get all
applicable consequential benefits”.
12. Similarly, in case of Sanjeev Ranjan (supra) it
has been rightly said that the service of employees may be
terminated for misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other
disqualification. But in the said judgment, the said circular
issued by the government of Bihar contained in Memo No.
12534 dated 17.09.2018 by which protection has been granted
by the State Government to the contractual employees including
the BIADA, has not been discussed at all. Therefore, this Court
is differing from the decision of Sanjeev Ranjan (supra) placed
by the BIADA. It has been intimated to this Court by the learned
Senior counsel for the petitioner that the term of contract of the
petitioner is going to be ended on 27.01.2026.
13. This Court also deems it appropriate to quote
the said circular issued by the General Administrative
Department, Government of Bihar, as contained in Memo No.
12534 dated 17.09.2018, and the extract of the same is as under:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
19/22
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
20/22
14. According to the said circular which is annexed
in the writ petition, recommendation has been accepted by the
State Government. Clause 7 of the said circular talks about the
provision of appeal with regard to the contractual employees.
And Clause-19 states that on BIADA, it is applicable. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
21/22
extract of Clause 7 and 19 are as follows:-
15. After implementation of the said Memo No.
12534 dated 17.09.2018 and as per the terms of
agreement/contract in Clause 6, 7 & 8, the same has become
diluted and the services of the petitioner required protection.
Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that in the light of the
decision of the Co-ordinate Bench as well as the resolution
dated 17.09.2018 quoted above, the removal only based on the
terms of contract is not permissible. Admittedly, the said
removal is stigmatic and no proper opportunity to the petitioner
to defend his case has been provided.
16. As such, this Court hereby grants protection to
the petitioner by way of setting aside both the orders challenged
i.e. the termination notice and the appellate order on the point
that the termination order has been passed if any, as pleaded by
Patna High Court CWJC No.11079 of 2024 dt.19-01-2026
22/22
the counsel for the BIADA dated 09.10.2023, has no relevancy
when the termination notice itself becomes set aside. Hence, the
termination notice as contained in Letter No.
5794/I/737Estt/BIADA/2023 dated 09.09.2023 and the appellate
order dated 29.05.2024 in Service Appeal No. 03 of 2023
(annexed as Annexure- P/1 series) are hereby set aside.
17. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation and
direction as well as the reasons mentioned above, the present
writ petition is hereby allowed. The Respondents are directed to
reinstate the petitioner within three months from the date of
production of a copy of this order. Arrears, if any, is directed to
be paid to the petitioner within the said period.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22/01/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…