Contractual Employee Under MGNREG Scheme Can't Be Removed On Vigilance Recommendation By Bypassing Govt Guidelines: Kerala High Court

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the employee cannot be removed merely on the basis of a recommendation made by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB).

The Court remarked that when government has laid down guidelines for removing a temporary employee, the same cannot be bypassed:

“it is necessary to hold that when Government issues guidelines for the removal or disengagement of a temporary employee, the same has to be followed and bypassing the guidelines for removal or disengagement of a contractual employee is illegal.”

The petitioner before the Court was a contractual employee appointed in the post of Accredited Engineer in Velom Grama Panchayat in accordance with the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREG Scheme).

The VACB Inspector of Police submitted a report recommending her removal from the post on the finding that there was dereliction of duty. This report was communicated to the Panchayat's Programme Officer and a showcause notice was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, she was removed from the post.

The petitioner challenged the VACB report, show cause notice and her removal from the post before the High Court. She contended that these were illegal since the appropriate procedure was not followed. It was pointed out that the government has issued a series of guidelines dated 03.01.2026 laying down the procedure for disengagement of contractual employees working under the MGNREG Scheme.

The petitioner also argued that the VACB do not have the authority to unilaterally recommend her removal without following this guideline.

The government pleader representing the VACB submitted that the report was prepared after following a full-fledged enquiry and therefore, VACB's recommendation cannot be interfered with.

The Panchayat Secretary's version was that the government guidelines could not be followed since the directions of the higher authorities (VACB) had to be complied with.

The Court was of the opinion that this explanation was not acceptable but it felt that the VACB's report was not suffering from any illegality since it only recommends the petitioner's removal from the post on a finding of dereliction of duty.

“Though the petitioner cannot claim any vested right to continue in the post, since her appointment itself is contractual in nature, the procedure contemplated…is required to be followed before effecting her removal. Therefore, merely by issuing…show cause notice based on…report, the removal of the petitioner could not be justified,” the Court added.

The Court allowed the writ petition in part by setting aside the show cause notice but went on to uphold the VACB report. It directed the Panchayat Secretary to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner by following the procedure contemplated and finalise the same within 3 months.

It clarified that the petitioner can continue in service unless the Panchayat Secretary is of the of the opinion that her temporary removal is necessary till a decision regarding disengagement is reached.

Case No: WP(C) No. 1412 of 2026

Case Title: Shamseera Parambath v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 259

Counsel for the petitioner: Dr. K.P. Pradeep, T.T. Biju, Smitha Gopinath, T. Thasmi, M.J. Anoopa

Counsel for the respondents: Rajesh A. - Spl.Government Pleader, Rekha S. - Sr. Government Pleader, T.M. Khalid, Vinod Singh Cheriyan, K.P. Susmitha

Click to Read/Download Judgment