The Patna High Court has clarified that even where a government engagement is governed by a contract, basic contractual safeguards—like prior notice or salary in lieu of notice—cannot be ignored when discontinuing service. In this case, a contractual appointee in the Education Department was terminated on the sole ground that he had been arrested for allegedly consuming liquor in a prohibition State. The High Court set aside the termination because no notice was issued and because the record included a forensic report indicating no ethyl alcohol in the sample taken from the person concerned.
The matter arose after the District Education Officer, Bhojpur, issued an order of termination dated 14 August 2020 against the engaged worker. The order relied only on the fact of arrest and brief custody following alleged consumption of liquor—a serious allegation in Bihar due to the State’s prohibition law. The High Court examined the engagement terms and the materials relied upon and concluded that the action violated the requirement of prior notice or payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice. This made the termination unsustainable.
In its oral judgment dated 13 January 2021, the Court noted that the engagement letter stipulated that services could be terminated by giving one month’s notice or one month’s salary. No such step was taken before the impugned order was issued. The Court also recorded that the forensic report did not detect ethyl alcohol—the intoxicating component of alcoholic beverages—in the relevant sample. The combination of (a) absence of mandatory notice and (b) the exculpatory forensic report led the Court to interfere with the termination. Consequently, the order was set aside, with liberty to the authorities to proceed afresh—but only after complying with the contractual requirement of notice or salary in advance.
In simple terms, the ruling sends two clear messages: First, an arrest alone does not justify immediate termination where the contract provides safeguards like notice or salary in lieu; second, where scientific evidence does not support the allegation, the employer must be especially careful before imposing the severe consequence of loss of livelihood. The High Court’s direction balances the State’s interest in maintaining discipline under prohibition laws with the individual’s right to fair treatment in employment decisions.
For contractual workers and government departments alike, the judgment is a reminder that even non-permanent engagements cannot be ended arbitrarily. Contractual clauses are not mere formalities; they are enforceable commitments. If the employer wishes to terminate swiftly due to a serious allegation, it must still honour the alternative of paying one month’s salary in advance, unless the contract or law says otherwise. Here, the oversight was two-fold: (i) no prior notice or salary in lieu was given, and (ii) the scientific report contradicted the alleged misconduct. The Court therefore restored procedural fairness without blocking the department from taking action in accordance with law and the contract, should it still wish to pursue termination after issuing due notice.
This ruling will be especially relevant in cases involving Bihar’s prohibition framework where arrests or brief custody may occur before a full inquiry is completed. Employers must resist the temptation to act punitively on the arrest alone. Instead, they must verify facts, consider available reports, and comply with termination clauses. As the Court demonstrated, the presence of an arrest does not automatically translate into guilt or justify ignoring the contract’s minimum procedural guarantees.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
For the general public—especially contractual staff in government establishments—this decision underscores that service can’t be cut short without following the agreed terms, even when an allegation appears serious. If a contract requires notice or one month’s salary, the department must comply. For government authorities, it is a cautionary note: termination orders cannot rest solely on the fact of arrest, particularly when a forensic report does not support the allegation. Procedural safeguards must be followed, and decisions should be based on verified material.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning
- Whether contractual engagement can be terminated solely on the basis of arrest for alleged liquor consumption without complying with the notice clause?
Decision: No. The Court held that where the contract provides for termination only after one month’s notice or one month’s salary in lieu, the employer must follow that mandate. Failure to do so vitiates the termination. The Court set aside the order. - Whether the forensic report’s finding of no ethyl alcohol matters to the termination decision?
Decision: Yes, it is a relevant consideration. The Court noted that the sample analysis did not detect ethyl alcohol, undermining the factual foundation of the alleged misconduct and reinforcing why the precipitous termination could not stand. - What relief should be granted after setting aside the termination?
Decision: The Court directed that the authorities may proceed in accordance with law and contract after issuing notice or paying one month’s salary in advance, and then take a fresh decision on termination. This preserves employer discretion but enforces procedural fairness.
Case Title
Abhishek Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7990 of 2020.
Citation(s)
2021(1) PLJR 636
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar.
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Rakesh Prabhat, Advocate — for the petitioner.
- Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, Advocate — for the State/respondents.
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNzk5MCMyMDIwIzEjTg==-8nD7r4AO4ko=
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.
