Patna High Court
Santosh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The termination order was void as it was passed without a show‑cause notice or hearing, violating natural justice, and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with benefits.
Summary
The petitioner, a contractual Traffic Manager with the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, challenged his termination on the ground of alleged unauthorized absence. He argued that he was directed to remain at headquarters during an inquiry and was never given a show‑cause notice or hearing. The respondents contended that the contract allowed termination with one month’s notice and that the petitioner was a pure contractual employee. The court examined the contractual terms, the principles of natural justice, and relevant Supreme Court precedents. It held that the termination was stigmatic, violated Article 14 and the principles of natural justice, and therefore set aside the termination order. The court directed the respondents to issue a show‑cause notice, conduct a proper inquiry, and reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether termination of a contractual employee without a show‑cause notice and hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
- Whether a contractual employee is entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits despite the contract’s termination clause.
- Whether the termination is stigmatic and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the employer can rely on Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act to deny specific performance of a contractual employment.
- Whether the contractual terms allowing termination with one month’s notice are enforceable in a public sector employment context.
Legislation cited
- Specific Relief Act, 1963 — s. 14
Subjects
- contractual employment
- termination
- natural justice
- show‑cause notice
- reinstatement
- public employer
- Specific Relief Act
- Article 14
- unfair dismissal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8551 of 2025
======================================================
Santosh Kumar Son of Sri Saukhi Lal, Resident of Village - Kalhanwaha
(Kalyanpur), Police Station - Durgawati, District- Kaimur (Rohtas).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Transport,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Bihar State Road Corporation, Patna through its Managing Director
having office at Phulwarisharif, Patna, Distt- Patna.
5. The Aministration (Chief), Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna.
6. The Regional Manager, Bihar State Road Transportation, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anand Kr. Ojha, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Ashok Kumar Karna, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Verma, Sr. Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 30-04-2026
Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned Sr. Counsel
assisted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Karna, learned Advocate
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Verma, learned Sr.
Counsel for the respondents.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.8551 of 2025 dt…30-04-2026
2/11
submits that the present writ petition has been filed for quashing
Letter No. 570 dated 19.02.2024 issued by Respondent No. 5,
namely the Administration (Chief), Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation, Patna, whereby the contractual engagement of the
petitioner has been terminated on the ground of alleged
unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 15.12.2023.
The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the
respondent authorities to reinstate him on his post, as he remains
willing and available to discharge his duties during the
subsistence of the contractual period. Learned Senior Counsel
further submits that the petitioner was initially appointed to the
post of Traffic Manager on a contractual basis for a period of
one year vide Letter No. 3675 dated 15.11.2018 issued by the
Administration (Chief), Bihar State Road Transport Corporation,
Patna, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Corporation.
Prior thereto, an offer of appointment was issued vide Letter No.
3466 dated 23.10.2018, requiring the petitioner to execute a
bond and submit an acceptance letter. The petitioner duly
complied with the said requirements and joined his duties,
which was formally accepted vide Memo No. 3699 dated
16.11.2018 (Annexure–P/3). It is submitted that the petitioner
continuously discharged his duties satisfactorily and no
Patna High Court CWJC No.8551 of 2025 dt…30-04-2026
3/11
complaint was ever made against him. His contractual
engagement was extended from time to time through various
orders. Subsequently, vide Letter No. 170 dated 01.09.2021, he
was transferred from the post of Depot Superintendent to the
Head Office, Patna. Thereafter, he was again transferred to
Aurangabad Depot, where he assumed charge as Depot
Superintendent and duly joined on 17.06.2022.
3. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that during
his posting at Aurangabad, the petitioner repeatedly requested
the Regional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation,
Gaya, through letters dated 16.05.2023, 18.06.2023, 01.07.2023,
29.08.2023, and 16.11.2023, to conduct physical verification of
the store and accounts, apprehending possible manipulation by
certain staff members (Annexure–8 series). However, no such
verification was undertaken despite repeated requests. It is
further submitted that the petitioner sustained a fracture in his
leg and, accordingly, submitted a leave application dated
10.10.2023 seeking leave from 12.10.2023 to 18.10.2023.
Learned counsel further submits that subsequently, vide Letter
No. 4092 dated 14.12.2023, the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer,
BSRTC, Patna directed all Regional Managers/Assistant
Regional Managers (Accounts) to conduct physical verification
Patna High Court CWJC No.8551 of 2025 dt…30-04-2026
4/11
of stores and accounts twice a month and submit reports,
warning of strict administrative action in case of irregularities
(Annexure–P/10). Pursuant thereto, the Regional Manager,
BSRTC, Gaya conducted verification at Aurangabad Depot and
alleged financial irregularities amounting to Rs. 4,00,140/-.
Consequently, an FIR bearing Town P.S. Case No. 896 of 2023
dated 15.12.2023 was lodged against the petitioner and one
Rajeev Raj, an outsourced cashier (Annexure–P/11).
4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the allegations
are wholly misconceived. It is contended that the responsibility
for maintaining cash, making entries in the account register, and
depositing cash in the bank lies solely with the cashier, and not
with the Depot Superintendent. The petitioner had no role in the
alleged misappropriation. It is further submitted that vide Letter
No. 885 dated 15.12.2023, the petitioner was directed to stop
work at Aurangabad Depot during the pendency of the enquiry
and remain present at the headquarters. Thus, the allegation of
unauthorized absence from 15.12.2023 is factually incorrect, as
the petitioner was complying with official directions. However,
without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any show
cause notice, the respondent authority abruptly terminated the
petitioner’s contract vide Memo No. 570 dated 19.02.2024 on
Patna High Court CWJC No.8551 of 2025 dt…30-04-2026
5/11
the ground of absence. It is submitted that such termination is
arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and has
serious civil consequences. The petitioner’s contractual tenure
was valid up to 05.05.2024, and at the time of termination, the
contract was still subsisting.
5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the
petitioner has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court
vide order dated 13.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 24489 of
2024, with a direction to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- in installments,
which has been duly complied with. In view of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, and the
petitioner deserves to be reinstated to the post of Traffic
Manager, as the post is still vacant.
6. To substantiate his submissions, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swati Pridarshini vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2024) 19 SCC 128.
Learned Senior Counsel has further relied upon the judgment
rendered in Bhola Nath vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported
in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 95, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has been pleased to hold that the State, being a “model
Patna High Court CWJC No.8551 of 2025 dt…30-04-2026
6/11
employer”, cannot exploit the unequal bargaining power of
employees by continuing them on a purely contractual basis for
an indefinite period so as to evade its obligations of regular
employment. It has further been held that abrupt discontinuation
of long-serving employees merely on the ground of “contractual
nomenclature”, and that too without a reasoned or speaking
order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
7. On the contrary, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the respondents submits that the present writ petition,
challenging the order of termination, is not maintainable and is
liable to be dismissed.
8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner
was appointed purely on a contractual basis for a period of one
year. Clause-6 of the terms of engagement, annexed as
Annexure–P/1 to the writ petition, specifically stipulates that the
engagement could be terminated at any time by giving one
month’s notice. Likewise, the petitioner was also at liberty to
disengage himself from service upon giving one month’s prior
notice. It is further submitted that the petitioner had been duly
intimated regarding the enquiry pertaining to the alleged
embezzlement, and thus was aware of the proposed action.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8551 of 2025 dt…30-04-2026
7/11
Thereafter, upon expiry of more than one month, the contractual
engagement of the petitioner was terminated on 19.02.2024
strictly in terms of Clause-6 of the engagement conditions.
9. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the
relationship between the petitioner and the Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation is that of master and servant governed
purely by contractual terms. Such a contract of personal service
is not specifically enforceable in view of the bar contained under
Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Even assuming that
the termination is stigmatic or assigns reasons, the remedy
available to the petitioner lies only in seeking damages and not
in claiming reinstatement or specific performance of the
contract. It is further submitted that the Court cannot declare
such termination as void, nor can it treat the contractual
employment as subsisting or grant consequential relief of
reinstatement.
10. It is further contended that there exists a clear
distinction between public employment governed by statutory
rules and employment governed purely by contractual terms.
The nature of relief depends upon whether the employment is
statutory or contractual. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits
that in the present case, the petitioner’s engagement is governed
Patna High Court CWJC No.8551 of 2025 dt…30-04-2026
8/11
entirely by the terms of the contract, with no statutory flavour
attached to it. Even if the employer is a statutory body, where
the relationship is purely contractual and not regulated by
statutory provisions, such contracts of personal service are not
specifically enforceable.
11. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned
Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. S. M.
Goyal, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92.
12. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the
materials available on record, particularly the terms of
engagement of the petitioner, it is evident that the nature of
appointment was purely contractual. Clause 1 of the terms of
engagement clearly stipulates that the petitioner would not be
entitled to the status of a Government servant, nor to any
benefits admissible to Government employees, and that he shall
not raise any claim for regularization. Clause 2 further provides
that the petitioner was to be paid a consolidated honorarium of
Rs. 30,000/- per month for the services rendered, without
entitlement to any additional allowances or wages. Clauses 3
and 4 explicitly state that there would be no entitlement to pay
revision, dearness allowance, contributory provident fund
Patna High Court CWJC No.8551 of 2025 dt…30-04-2026
9/11
(CPF), group insurance, or any other service benefits. It is also
stipulated that the petitioner shall not raise any claim against
decisions of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, and in
the event of breach of any terms, the engagement would be
deemed terminated.
13. In view of the aforesaid, there is no manner of
doubt that the petitioner was a contractual employee.
14. From the impugned order contained in Memo No.
570 dated 19.02.2024, it transpires that the contract of the
petitioner has been terminated on the ground of unauthorized
absence from duty with effect from 15.12.2023. However, it is
the specific stand of the petitioner that he was present at the
Aurangabad Depot on and from 15.12.2023.
15. In support of his contention, the petitioner has
relied upon Letter No. 885 dated 15.12.2023 issued by the
Regional Manager, BSRTC, whereby he was directed not to
leave the headquarters and to remain present during the
pendency of the inquiry.
16. From the judgment rendered in the case of Swati
Priya Darshani (supra), it has been held that the services of a
contractual employee may be terminated with one month’s
notice on the ground of inefficiency, provided such termination
Patna High Court CWJC No.8551 of 2025 dt…30-04-2026
10/11
is non-stigmatic and simpliciter. Further, in Bhola Nath (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the State, being a
“model employer,” cannot exploit the unequal bargaining power
of employees by continuing them on a purely contractual basis
for an indefinite period so as to evade its obligations.
17. In the present case, although the allegation of
unauthorized absence from duty has been made against the
petitioner, the counter affidavit itself acknowledges issuance of
Letter No. 885 dated 15.12.2023 by the Regional Manager,
Gaya, directing the petitioner to remain on duty and not to leave
the headquarters until completion of the inquiry. However, prior
to issuance of the impugned order dated 19.02.2024, no show-
cause notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
petitioner. Moreover, allegations of irregularity and
embezzlement have also been levelled without conducting any
inquiry.
18. Thus, the impugned order, having been passed
without adherence to the principles of natural justice, is
unsustainable in law.
19. Accordingly, the impugned order contained in
Memo No. 570 dated 19.02.2024 issued by Respondent No. 5,
namely the Administrative Chief, Bihar State Road Transport
Patna High Court CWJC No.8551 of 2025 dt…30-04-2026
11/11
Corporation, is hereby set aside.
20. The respondents are directed to issue a show-cause
notice to the petitioner, grant him adequate opportunity of
hearing, and thereafter take a reasoned decision in accordance
with law. As held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Anuj
Shukla (supra), prior to passing a stigmatic order of termination,
a full-fledged departmental inquiry is required.
21. In light of the observations made hereinabove, this
Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is
stigmatic in nature and has been passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was
provided to the petitioner.
22. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to
reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall be entitled
to all consequential benefits, subject to the outcome of any fresh
decision taken by the respondents after due process.
23. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
writ petition stands allowed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 02.04.2026
Uploading Date 30.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…