The Patna High Court set aside the termination of a contractual Hospital Manager working under the District Health Society, West Champaran, holding that the action violated basic principles of natural justice. The Court found that (a) the grounds used to terminate were not fully relatable to the final show-cause notice, (b) only two days were allowed to respond, and (c) the notice conveyed a pre-determined mind—together rendering the termination order unsustainable.
The petition arose from the termination order dated 03.02.2020 issued by the District Magistrate-cum-President, District Health Society, whereby the petitioner’s contractual services as Hospital Manager at the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Bagaha, were brought to an end. The High Court, per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah, quashed the order with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Date of judgment: 19.03.2021.
Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
This case concerns a contractual Hospital Manager engaged by the District Health Society (a public authority under the Health Department, Government of Bihar). Over time, multiple show-cause notices were issued alleging various lapses in hospital administration and availability of medicines. The petitioner submitted replies to these notices. However, instead of culminating in a fair appraisal of the specific charges put in the final notice, the competent authority issued an order dated 03.02.2020 terminating services, stating that several charges stood proved.
The High Court examined whether the termination complied with natural justice. Two central defects were highlighted:
- Mismatch between Notice and Order (travelling beyond the bounds of the notice).
The Court noted that the impugned termination went beyond the scope of the charges as framed in the relevant show-cause notice dated 19.10.2019. In law, a person can be penalized only for what they have been specifically called upon to answer; an inquiry that exceeds the notice is impermissible. Here, the order rested on matters not fully relatable to that final notice. This, by itself, tainted the decision. - Inadequate Opportunity (only two days to reply).
The petitioner was given only two days to respond to the final show-cause notice. For a working professional defending against multiple administrative allegations, such a short timeline effectively shut out a meaningful defense. The Court characterized this as denial of adequate opportunity, violating natural justice.
The Court also took note that the tenor of the 19.10.2019 notice suggested a pre-determined mind. A show-cause notice must be issued with an open mind; if it reflects an already formed conclusion, the subsequent proceeding becomes an empty formality. The Court applied settled principles from decisions of the Supreme Court emphasizing that authorities must act fairly, avoid prejudgment, and confine themselves to the allegations presented in the notice.
On maintainability, the State’s counsel did not press any objection; the case was thus decided on merits. The petitioner had relied on Supreme Court authority to argue that writ courts can review termination even in contractual matters when public authorities act unreasonably or unfairly. Although the State did not contest maintainability, the broader proposition—that courts can examine public law elements (illegality, perversity, irrationality) in government contract decisions—was part of the petitioner’s submissions.
Ultimately, the High Court quashed the termination order dated 03.02.2020 and granted liberty to the authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law. This means the employer may issue a proper notice, provide adequate time and opportunity, and take a reasoned decision confined to the charges actually put to the employee. Until then, the impugned order does not survive.
Why this matters: The case reiterates three foundational principles for public employment decisions—especially in contractual settings:
- Fair Notice: The final order must correspond to the charges actually notified.
- Real Opportunity: Time to respond must be reasonable, not illusory.
- Open Mind: Authorities must not prejudge the matter when initiating proceedings.
These principles are not technicalities; they are safeguards to ensure that even in contractual engagements within public bodies, decision-making remains lawful, transparent, and fair.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)
For the general public, particularly those engaged on contractual terms in government-run programs (such as health societies, education missions, or development schemes), this judgment is reassuring. It clarifies that public authorities cannot terminate contracts arbitrarily. If allegations are made, the authority must (i) clearly frame charges in the show-cause notice, (ii) give the person sufficient time and a meaningful chance to respond, and (iii) decide only on those charges after considering the reply with an open mind. Failure on any of these points can lead to judicial interference.
For government departments and District Health Societies, the decision is a compliance reminder. Even when engaging personnel on contract, they must:
- Draft notices that are specific, accurate, and free from conclusory language suggesting guilt.
- Provide reasonable timelines—especially where multiple or complex allegations are involved.
- Avoid adding or expanding charges in the final order beyond what the employee was asked to answer.
- Record clear, cogent reasons showing application of mind to the reply.
Adhering to these steps reduces litigation risk, strengthens the defensibility of administrative actions, and promotes fairness in public service delivery. The Court’s approach aligns with Supreme Court precedent requiring reasoned, fair, and transparent decision-making by quasi-judicial and administrative authorities.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning
- Whether the termination order could validly rely on grounds not fully relatable to the final show-cause notice?
Decision: No. An inquiry cannot travel beyond the bounds of the notice. The order dated 03.02.2020 relied on grounds not confined to the 19.10.2019 notice, rendering it unsustainable. - Whether providing only two days to respond satisfied natural justice?
Decision: No. Allowing merely two days amounted to denial of adequate opportunity to present a wholesome defense, violating natural justice. - Whether the show-cause notice reflected a pre-determined mind?
Decision: Yes. The tenor of the notice suggested prejudgment, which vitiates the proceedings because authorities must keep an open mind while initiating and deciding show-cause matters. - What was the ultimate relief?
Decision: The termination order dated 03.02.2020 was quashed, with liberty to the authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)
- GRIDCO Limited & Anr. v. Sadananda Dolai & Ors., (2011) 15 SCC 16 — cited to submit that writ courts may judicially review termination of contractual appointments made by public authorities for illegality, perversity, or unreasonableness.
- Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427 — cited for the principle that a show-cause notice must not reflect a pre-determined conclusion; authorities must act fairly and with an open mind.
- Nasir Ahmad v. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property & Anr., (1980) 3 SCC 1 — cited to argue that an inquiry cannot go beyond the bounds of the notice, and decisions based on grounds not noticed are invalid.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)
- Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427 — extracted and relied on for open-mind and fair-hearing requirements in show-cause proceedings.
- Nasir Ahmad v. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property & Anr., (1980) 3 SCC 1 — relied upon for the rule that proceedings cannot extend beyond the scope of the notice; otherwise they are without jurisdiction to that extent.
Case Title
Rahul Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (as per cause title in the judgment)
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7015 of 2020
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 400
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Satyavrat Verma, Advocate
- For the Respondents (State): Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, GA-10
Link to Judgment
MTUjNzAxNSMyMDIwIzEjTg==-MwNdOZ5XN4U=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
