Dismissal is invalid if charges are not disclosed in the notice: Supreme Court

Ravi Oraon & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2025 INSC 1212

Brief Description

The Supreme Court has ruled that any termination based on reasons not mentioned in the charge sheet or notice is legally invalid. In this landmark judgment, the Court held that withholding or changing the grounds amounts to a violation of natural justice. Employers must clearly state all allegations before taking punitive action. The decision reinforces the importance of due process in disciplinary matters.

The Core Issue

The main dispute in this case was about the wrongful termination of three government school teachers in Jharkhand — Ravi Oraon, Premlal Hembrom, and Surendra Munda. They were appointed in 2015 as Intermediate Trained Teachers after clearing the selection process.

However, in September 2016, they received show-cause notices saying:

They did not have the minimum marks required (45%) in their Intermediate (Class XII) examination, and

Their graduation certificates were questionable.

All three belonged to Scheduled Tribe category and replied that they needed only 40% marks as per the 5% relaxation in the recruitment advertisement. They also clarified that graduation certificates were not even required for the post (Classes I-V).

Despite this clarification, their services were terminated the very next month. The department reduced their percentage by excluding the marks they scored in vocational subjects. This specific ground — exclusion of marks — was never mentioned in the show-cause notices.

They challenged the termination orders before the High Court. A Single Judge set aside their termination, but the Division Bench later reversed that decision. The matter finally reached the Supreme Court.

So, the central issues were:

• Was the termination legal when the ground used for dismissal was not even part of the original notice?

• Can authorities change the reason for action without informing the employee?

• Should vocational-subject marks be counted while checking eligibility?

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

• The Supreme Court gave a very clear and strong decision in favour of the appellants.

Key findings:

• Marks in vocational subjects must be counted for eligibility.

• The Court explained that Rule 21 of the 2012 Appointment Rules is only for preparing the merit list at the time of recruitment. It cannot be used to decide eligibility. Eligibility is governed by Rule 4, and Rule 4 does not exclude vocational marks. Also, the mark sheets themselves show that additional marks in vocational subjects must be added to improve overall percentage.

• The teachers had more than 40% when vocational marks were added. So, they were eligible.

Violation of Natural Justice:

The Supreme Court criticized the department harshly because:

• The termination was based on a reason never mentioned in the show-cause notice.

• Employees must be clearly told the exact charge and given a fair chance to respond.

• You cannot change the grounds behind someone’s back.

Graduation certificates were valid.

• The government itself later accepted that the degrees from Hindi Vidyapeeth before 26 February 2015 were valid.

Highhanded and arbitrary action:

• The Court said the government acted illegally and without fairness.

Relief Granted:

• Ravi Oraon and Premlal Hembrom will be treated as continuously in service from 2015.

• ·They will receive full back wages and seniority benefits.

For experience-based promotion, only active service will count.

• Since Surendra Munda had passed away in 2024, his legal heirs will get arrears of pay, and he will be treated as having died in service. His family can apply for compassionate appointment.

Takeaways for Employers

This judgment is a strong reminder to all employers including of Private Sector.

a) You cannot go beyond the show-cause notice: Any termination based on new grounds not mentioned in the notice is illegal and will be struck down.

a) Natural justice is non-negotiable

• A real opportunity to respond Employees must receive

• Clear communication of charges

• An unbiased decision based only on the stated grounds

c) Arbitrary decisions will lead to reinstatement with back wages

• Courts can restore full service benefits even after many years.

d) Technical errors by the employer become costly

• Here, the government must now pay arrears of almost nine years and treat the employees as continuously working.

Proactive Action for HR Professionals

• To avoid similar legal setbacks, HR professionals should adopt preventive measures:

• · Issue precise and comprehensive show-cause notices

• · Mention every allegation clearly.

• · Do not assume employees know the unstated reasons.

• · Allow employees to reply before taking action

• · Never terminate service immediately after receiving a reply.

• · If the reply introduces new facts, issue a fresh notice if needed.

• · Train appointing and disciplinary authorities

• · Many violations happen because of not understanding and natural justice principles.

• For terminated employees, verify before dismissing

• · If any clarification is given in reply, examine it rather than rushing to termination.

In death cases, be sensitive

· The Court ensured dependents receive rightful benefits — HR must handle such cases lawfully and humanely.

For HR departments, this judgment is not just a case reference but a strong reminder that:

• Process is as important as the decision itself

• Communication must be transparent

• Natural justice is the foundation of any lawful action

• A little care at the HR level can prevent long legal battles, reinstatement orders, back wages, and reputational harm.

In Conclusion

• The Supreme Court has made it very clear — employers cannot bypass fairness, correct interpretation of rules, or due process. Any dismissal that is not supported by the same grounds stated in the notice is illegal.