Termination Without Enquiry, Followed By Post-Facto Revocation 'Unknown To Law': Rajasthan High Court Slaps Costs On State

The Rajasthan High Court has criticized the State's action in terminating a contractual employee without enquiry, followed by a post-facto enquiry lading to revocation of termination.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman observed that the entire procedure adopted by the concerned authority was unknown to law and had caused undue hardship and mental agony to the Petitioner. It thus imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the respondents to be given to the petitioner.

The petitioner was working as a senior treatment supervisor in the Medical and Health Department on contractual basis. Based on the allegations that he had spread fake news regarding admission and treatment of some Covid positive patients in the hospital, his services were terminated, without any enquiry, based on an FIR that was registered.

Subsequently, when the enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found not guilty, a revocation order was passed for giving zero effect to the termination order.

The petition was filed by the petitioner contending that the procedure adopted by the authority was stigmatic, seeking continuity in service between the termination and revocation orders.

After hearing the contentions, the Court opined,

“…the entire procedure adopted by the respondents-Authority is unknown to the law. There cannot be any stigmatic termination by ordering an enquiry. Basing on such enquiry, revocation of such a termination order is passed. An illegal procedure has been adopted which is unknown to law.”

It was held that the act of terminating without enquiry, followed by a revocation order based on an enquiry conducted subsequent to the termination, to give zero effect to the termination, was an action contrary to law.

The Court held that the act resulted in undue hardship and mental agony to the petitioner and caused loss to the exchequer of the State.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, setting aside the actions of the government and it was directed that Rs. 25,000 be paid by the respondents to the petitioner. It was directed that the period between petitioner's termination and revocation shall be treated as period on duty.

The Court further granted liberty to the State government to initiate appropriate proceedings against the concerned authority for passing such kind of orders and recovering losses to the exchequer.

Title: Anil Kumar Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 147

Click Here To Read/Download Order