Writ Under Article 226 Against Termination in Violation of Natural Justice
An advocate seeking to challenge the termination of a public sector undertaking employee under Article 226 must establish that the employer acted with a duty to act judicially and failed to observe the principles of natural justice. The core complaint is that the employee was condemned unheard, without a show-cause notice or a disciplinary inquiry, solely on the ground of unauthorised absence. The writ petitioner must demonstrate that the impugned order carries civil consequences and that the employer is an instrumentality of the State amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction.
Courts examine whether the decision-making process was fair, not the correctness of the termination itself, as illustrated in Tata Cellular v. Union of India. The listed cases show that while the audi alteram partem rule is fundamental, courts weigh the facts to determine if a post-decisional hearing can cure the defect. The holdings in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon provide context on the limits of judicial intervention in employment and contractual matters, guiding when a writ court will grant reinstatement.
The leading cases
12 judgments · 12 Supreme Court · most-cited first
What LexPilot's research engine returns for this question, ranked by court and how often each judgment has been cited since. Read the full judgment before you rely on a holding.
- 1
B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.
2003 INSC 179Supreme Court · 2003cited 11,973 times
The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings, FIR, or complaint in matrimonial disputes even for non-compoundable offences under Section 498A and 406 IPC.…
- 2
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another
2012 INSC 419Supreme Court · 2012cited 7,921 times
The inherent power of the High Court under s. 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings is distinct from the power of compounding under s. 320; s. 320 does not limit or restrict s. 482. The High Court may quash…
- 3
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr
2008 INSC 948Supreme Court · 2008cited 6,710 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The Court held that, on an overall view of the facts and keeping in mind the compromise decree and the principle in B.S.…
- 4
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors.
2006 INSC 216Supreme Court · 2006cited 6,553 times
The appeal was disposed of in favour of the State. The Supreme Court held that there is no fundamental right to regularization or permanent absorption for employees engaged on daily wages, temporarily, or…
- 5
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Ors.
2007 INSC 1243Supreme Court · 2007cited 3,669 times
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that an aggrieved person has no right to insist on investigation by a particular agency like the CBI; he can only claim a proper investigation. The Court elaborated on…
- 6
Shri Bhajanlal, Chief Minister, Haryana v. Mis Jindal Strips Ltd. and Ors .
1994 INSC 303Supreme Court · 1994cited 3,099 times
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the mere transfer of a case from one Bench to another, based on court practice or roster changes, does not justify an allegation of bias. There was no evidence that…
- 7
State of Haryana and Ors. etc. etc. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Another etc. etc.
1992 INSC 357Supreme Court · 1992cited 2,700 times
The Court dismissed the contempt petition and interlocutory applications. The statement of fact in a newspaper report is hearsay and inadmissible without proof by evidence aliunde. The applicant failed to discharge the…
- 8
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others
2010 INSC 428Supreme Court · 2010cited 2,516 times
1. A secured creditor is not required to exhaust remedies against the principal borrower before proceeding against the guarantor under the SARFAESI Act; the notices and application filed by the bank cannot be faulted…
- 9
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
1994INSC283Supreme Court · 1994cited 2,240 times
The Supreme Court held that judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process, not the merits. While the government has freedom of contract, decisions must be free from arbitrariness, bias…
- 10
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others
2021 INSC 253Supreme Court · 2021cited 2,233 times
Police has a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences; courts must not thwart investigation save in exceptional cases. Blanket "no coercive steps" orders without reasons are impermissible and hamper…
- 11
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors.
2002 INSC 148Supreme Court · 2002cited 2,152 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's bail order, and cancelled the bail. The High Court committed a manifest error by granting bail without cogent reasons, ignoring the subsequent FIR and…
- 12
Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. v. Radhika and Anr.
2011 INSC 797Supreme Court · 2011cited 2,039 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the prosecution. The Court held that while the offence under Section 354 IPC is compoundable, the offence under Section 394 IPC is…
Frequently asked questions
Can a High Court under Article 226 quash a termination order passed without any show-cause notice or inquiry?
Yes, if the termination is found to be arbitrary and in breach of the audi alteram partem rule. The court will examine whether the employer, as an instrumentality of the State, failed to follow a fair procedure before imposing a penalty that carries civil consequences.
When will a post-decisional hearing be considered sufficient to remedy a violation of natural justice?
Courts weigh the urgency of the situation and the prejudice caused to the employee. A post-decisional hearing may be accepted if the employer demonstrates compelling reasons for immediate action, but it is not an automatic cure and the court will scrutinise whether the subsequent hearing was meaningful and effective.
Is a public sector undertaking employee entitled to reinstatement if the termination violates natural justice?
Reinstatement is not automatic. The court will balance the procedural violation against other factors such as the employee's conduct, the nature of the employment, and the principles laid down in cases like Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi regarding the rights of irregular appointees.
Free trial · Research assistance, not legal advice — always read the judgment before you rely on it.
More on constitutional, service & writs
- Promotion and Seniority Disputes in Service Law
- Right to Information — Disclosure and Exemptions under Section 8