Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi vs Technology Development Board & Ors on 16 April, 2026

April 22, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi vs Technology Development Board & Ors on 16 April, 2026

1. These petitions are being disposed of by a common order because
they arise out of the same factual setting, are founded on substantially the
same record, and raise common questions of law. The Petitioners formed
part of the same body of contractual staff engaged by Respondent No. 1, i.e.,
the Technology Development Board [“TDB”]. Each of them was subjected
to the same course of administrative action during the period in question. All
three were covered by the suspension order dated 22nd April, 2018, issued in
the wake of a complaint made against the then Secretary of Respondent
No.1. Each was thereafter drawn into the same show-cause process, which
culminated in termination letters dated 5th September, 2018 issued in
materially identical terms. In that backdrop, it is both convenient and

SPONSORED

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 2 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56
appropriate to examine the challenge in one frame. There are, of course,
particulars specific to each Petitioner; those will be noticed where they bear
on the controversy. For the rest, the issues are common and can properly be
addressed together.

2. At the outset, Mr. Shanker Raju, counsel for the Petitioners, states that
the Petitioners are not pressing any claim for regularisation in these writ
petitions. The Court is, therefore, not required to examine any issue of
absorption into regular service. The controversy is narrower and can be
stated with some precision. It concerns the legality of the suspension, the
true character of the subsequent termination, and the relief that should
follow if the impugned action is found to be unsustainable.
Factual Background

3. Each of the Petitioners had been associated with TDB for a
considerable period, though their dates of initial engagement are not
identical and relate back to 2006-2007. For present purposes, it is material
that, by 2013, they were among the contractual personnel whose
engagement came to be placed directly with TDB, and whose contracts were
thereafter renewed from time to time. The material on record indicates
continuity over the years through repeated extensions on substantially the
same terms.

4. The contract renewal orders placed the Petitioners among a defined
set of contractual staff whose continuance was linked to “satisfactory
performance”. The service record relied upon in the petitions includes
annual performance assessment material recording “Very Good” and
“Outstanding” gradings. The work profile reflected on the record includes
preparation of agendas and minutes, annual report work, replies to audit

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 3 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56
paras and RTI applications, project and file management, record
management, and in-house coordination and support work connected to
Board functioning.

5. The trigger for the present litigation was a complaint dated 22 nd
January, 2018 containing allegations against Dr. Bindu Dey, then Secretary,
TDB. The sequence that followed is reflected in the record. On 2nd February,
2018, the Central Vigilance Commission [“CVC”] issued a communication
in relation to the complaint, followed by a further communication dated 12 th
April, 2018 on the same issue. On 16th April, 2018, Prashant Kumar
Vidyarthi [the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 13651/2018] addressed a written
response stating that the complaint had not been made by him, pointing out
discrepancies in the name and office address appearing in the vigilance
communication, and requesting a copy of the complaint.

6. Thereafter, TDB issued an office order dated 22nd April, 2018 placing
15 contractual employees under suspension with immediate effect. The
order records that TDB had received a copy of a letter written by four
contractual employees levelling corruption allegations against the Secretary,
and states that a vigilance enquiry was proposed through the DST Vigilance
Cell and the CVC. The present Petitioners were among the 15 employees
covered by that order.

7. The record also reflects that, on 1st May, 2018, the Chairman, TDB
noted that the order of suspension did not, prima facie, appear to rest on
adequate justification and called for an explanation along with the relevant
rule position. The response note appended to the order records that the
annual contractual arrangements did not provide for “suspension” as such,
but contemplated “termination” in cases involving conduct harmful to TDB.

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 4 of 22

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56
It further records that an enquiry committee had been constituted and that
suspension had been adopted pending investigation. A subsequent office
order dated 5th May, 2018 continued the suspension on the footing that an
enquiry was in progress and that such continuance was considered necessary
to avoid possible interference with records.

8. The DST Vigilance Cell note dated 28th August, 2018 records that the
Internal Enquiry Report did not disclose any conclusive material regarding
the authenticity of the complaint dated 22nd January, 2018; that no individual
had owned the complaint; and that its source could not be identified. On that
basis, the note records that the complaint was liable to be treated as
pseudonymous and that no further action was warranted on it. The note
further records that, in that view, the continuation of suspension would not
be justified. The material on record indicates that the complaint was
thereafter treated as closed at the departmental level.

9. The note sheet for the period between 26th June, 2018 and 30th July,
2018 reflects the processing and issuance of Show-Cause Notices [“SCNs”]
to the present Petitioners. On 26th June, 2018, a draft SCN on the issue of
“insubordination” in relation to Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi was placed for
legal vetting, and, upon approval, an SCN was issued to him on 9 th July,
2018. The material on record further indicates that SCNs were also issued to
Jagmohan Singh and Sandeep Kumar. The note sheets for 24 th and 25th July,
2018 record consideration of allegations relating to disclosure and use of
internal notesheets, Board minutes, and other organisational material in the
earlier writ petitions filed by the Petitioners. The record also reflects that, on
30th July, 2018, the legal division considered issuance of a further
consolidated SCN to Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi, taking into account both the

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 5 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

10. The record also includes draft material prepared in connection with
the proposed termination. The internal noting dated 4 th September, 2018,
records that the replies submitted by Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi, Sandeep
Kumar and Jagmohan Singh were considered unsatisfactory; that documents
placed on record in the earlier writ proceedings were understood as
reflecting retrieval and use of internal organisational material; and that such
conduct was viewed, at the departmental level, as a misuse of access
available to them in the course of their contractual engagement.

11. The termination letters dated 5th September, 2018, however, are
couched in neutral terms, stating that the Petitioners were “found unsuitable”

and that their services were “no longer required”, along with payment of
one month’s remuneration in lieu of notice.

Petitioners’ Contentions

12. In support of the petitions, Mr. Shanker Raju, counsel for the
Petitioners, makes the following submissions:

12.1. The initiation of action itself was without lawful foundation. The
complaint dated 22nd January, 2018, on the basis of which the process was
set in motion, was not made by the Petitioners, and this position had been
communicated to the vigilance authorities even prior to the suspension
order. The contractual terms did not contemplate suspension, and the power
to suspend contractual employees was, in any event, doubtful. The vigilance
record itself later treated the complaint as pseudonymous, recorded that no
one had owned it, and concluded that no further action was warranted and
that the suspension could not be sustained. The material obtained under the
Right to Information Act further indicates that no formal vigilance

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 6 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

12.2. The record reflects a progression of shifting grounds: from an initial
complaint alleging corruption, to suspension pending enquiry, to allegations
relating to retrieval of documents, disclosure of internal material,
insubordination and breach of trust, and ultimately to termination framed in
the neutral language of “unsuitability”. This shifting course indicates that the
impugned action was not a bona fide contractual discontinuance but a
disguised punitive measure.

12.3. Reliance is placed on the service record, including annual
performance assessments reflecting favourable gradings such as “Very
Good” and “Outstanding”. No contemporaneous material has been produced
to indicate unsatisfactory performance. The description of the Petitioners as
“unsuitable” is, therefore, not borne out from the record and is said to be a
neutral formulation adopted to conceal the real basis of the action.
12.4. The impugned action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Several
similarly placed employees covered by the suspension order dated 22 nd
April, 2018 were subsequently reinstated and continued in service, including
by orders dated 8th June and 20th June, 2018, subject to execution of non-
disclosure bonds. The present Petitioners alone were singled out for further
adverse action without any rational basis, and such differential treatment
lacks any intelligible differentia.

12.5. The subsequent shift to outsourcing arrangements does not justify the
impugned action. It is submitted that even under the outsourcing model,
similarly placed personnel have continued to perform functions connected
with TDB, and that effective control over their engagement remains with

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 7 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

12.6. The core submission is that the termination cannot be viewed in
isolation from the preceding events. The complaint, suspension, enquiry
process, show-cause notices and internal record form a continuous sequence.
Where the action is, in substance, founded on allegations of misconduct,
including insubordination, improper retrieval of documents, and misuse of
official material, the employer cannot dispense with procedural safeguards
by merely employing neutral language in the final order.
12.7. In support of above submissions, reliance is placed on U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation v. Brijesh Kumar1, to contend that even in the
case of contractual engagements, where the termination is founded in
substance on allegations of misconduct, such action cannot be sustained
without compliance with the principles of natural justice, including
affording a fair opportunity of hearing. Reliance is also placed on Swati
Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh2 to submit that the form of the
order is not conclusive, and that where the surrounding record discloses that
the action is, in effect, punitive in nature, the Court is entitled to go behind
the form of the order and examine its true character, including in cases
where an ostensibly innocuous order is used as a cloak for punitive action.
Respondents’ Contentions

13. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, senior counsel appearing for
TDB, opposes the present petitions and makes the following submissions:

13.1. The Petitioners were engaged purely on contractual terms, and the

1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2282.

(2024) 19 SCC 128.

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 8 of 22

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56
relationship between the parties was governed by the terms of engagement.
The termination constitutes an exercise of the contractual right to
discontinue the engagement upon notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof,
which has been duly effected. The termination orders dated 5 th September,
2018 are, on their face, non-stigmatic and do not cast any aspersion on the
Petitioners. They are required to be read as simpliciter discharge in terms of
the contract, and not as punitive or founded on any allegation of misconduct.
Mere continuity over a period of time does not confer any vested right to
continue in service beyond the terms of the contract.

13.2. The background of suspension cannot be conflated with the
subsequent termination. Suspension was only an interim administrative
measure taken at a particular stage and did not necessarily culminate in
disciplinary action in every case. Where no further action was warranted,
employees were permitted to rejoin. In the case of the present Petitioners,
however, their services were not continued as TDB no longer required them.
The termination represents an independent exercise of contractual power and
is not dependent on the outcome of the earlier suspension.
13.3. As a matter of policy, TDB has since discontinued engagement of
contractual personnel of the nature earlier retained, and its temporary
manpower requirements are now met through outsourcing arrangements. In
that backdrop, no direction for reinstatement can be issued, particularly
when the Petitioners were not appointed against regular posts.
13.4. Without prejudice to the above, the Petitioners could, at the highest,
claim compensation only up to the balance of their contractual tenure, which
was to run till December 2018. No right to reinstatement or continuation
survives beyond the contractual period.

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 9 of 22

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56
13.5. In support of these submissions, reliance is placed on Satish Joshi v.
Union of India3, Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of
Medical Sciences4 and A.N. Gupta v. Public Enterprises Selection Board5
to contend that a contractual engagement can be brought to an end in terms
of the contract, and that an order referring to unsuitability does not, by itself,
become punitive. Reliance is placed, in particular, on S.S. Shetty v. Bharat
Nidhi Ltd.6 to submit that where a contract of service is terminable by
notice, damages, in the ordinary course, are confined to the notice period,
i.e., the stipulated notice pay, and even on a broader view, any monetary
relief would extend at best to the balance of the contractual term.
13.6. During the course of proceedings, without prejudice to TDB’s rights
and contentions and without acknowledging any enforceable right in the
Petitioners, and in order to bring quietus to the dispute, TDB offers to pay
salary to the Petitioners up to March 2019, i.e., beyond the contractual
period. It is emphasised that this offer travels beyond TDB’s strict
contractual liability and is made ex gratia, and cannot be treated as
recognition of any legal entitlement.

Questions for Determination

14. In the backdrop of the record and the rival submissions, the following
questions arise for determination:

(i) Whether the suspension order dated 22nd April, 2018, and its
continuation through the office order dated 5th May, 2018, had any lawful
basis insofar as the present petitioners are concerned.

2017 SCC OnLine Del 7409.

(2002) 1 SCC 520.

2003 SCC OnLine Del 1235.

1957 SCC OnLine SC 29.

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 10 of 22

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56

(ii) Whether the termination letters dated 5th September, 2018 are to be
treated as instances of simple contractual discharge on the ground of
unsuitability, or whether, on a proper reading of the record, they are in
substance founded on allegations of misconduct, breach of trust, or other
imputations carrying a punitive character.

(iii) Whether TDB can validly sustain the impugned action by resting
solely on the contractual notice clause, notwithstanding the surrounding
facts and the internal record.

(iv) If the impugned action is found to be unsustainable, what relief ought
to follow in the facts of the present cases, particularly when regularisation is
not pressed and TDB’s case is that the earlier model of direct contractual
engagement was subsequently discontinued.

Discussion and Reasons

15. The Court proposes to take up the issues in the sequence in which
they arise on the record. The first question is whether the suspension itself
had any lawful basis. On that aspect, the record speaks with clarity. The
order dated 22nd April, 2018 does not rest on any identified breach of
contract or recorded dissatisfaction with the Petitioners’ work or conduct. It
proceeds only on the footing that TDB had received a copy of a letter said to
have been written by four contractual employees levelling corruption
allegations against the then Secretary, and that a vigilance enquiry was
proposed through the DST Vigilance Cell and the CVC. On that basis alone,
15 contractual employees, including the Petitioners, were placed under
suspension with immediate effect.

16. That order did not command confidence even within the institution.
On 1st May, 2018, the Chairman (TDB) recorded that, prima facie, the

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 11 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56
suspension order did not appear to be supported by sufficient justification
and called for a full explanation together with the applicable rule position.
The response put up on behalf of the administration acknowledged that the
annual contractual agreements did not contemplate “suspension” as such,
but rather “termination” in cases involving activities harmful to TDB, and
that suspension had nevertheless been adopted as a measure of caution
pending enquiry. This is not merely a matter of drafting or expression. It
goes to the existence of power itself. When the employer’s own record
shows that the governing contractual framework did not provide for
suspension, the action cannot be defended as a mere procedural
imperfection.

17. The legal difficulty became still sharper by the end of August 2018.
The DST Vigilance note dated 28th August, 2018 records in plain terms that
no one had owned the complaint dated 22nd January, 2018; its source had not
been identified by the Internal Enquiry Committee; and the complaint could
therefore be treated as pseudonymous, with no further action warranted on
it. The note then proceeds a step further and states that, once the complaint
is so treated, the suspension of the contractual employees is no longer valid.
That note was approved, and the complaint stood closed at the departmental
level. In the face of such material, the suspension cannot be said to retain
any lawful footing.

18. There is yet another circumstance which cannot be overlooked.
Before the suspension order came to be issued, Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi
had already, by his letter dated 16th April, 2018, denied having made the
complaint, pointed out discrepancies in the name and office address
reflected in the vigilance communication, and sought a copy of the

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 12 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56
complaint itself. That denial preceded the suspension order by 6 days. Seen
in conjunction with the later vigilance note treating the complaint as
pseudonymous and closing the matter, this prior denial materially weakens
the basis on which the suspension was set in motion in the first place.

19. In these circumstances, the Court finds little room for doubt that the
suspension order dated 22nd April, 2018, and its continuation through the
office order dated 5th May, 2018, cannot be sustained in law insofar as the
Petitioners are concerned. The action was taken against contractual
employees without any clear contractual source of power, on the strength of
a complaint whose authorship had already been questioned before the order
was passed, and which was later treated by DST itself as pseudonymous and
closed. Once that is the position on the record, the suspension loses its legal
foundation. Issue (i) is, thus, answered accordingly.

20. The real controversy, however, lies in Issue (ii). TDB would have the
Court treat the later termination as entirely severable from the suspension
and read it on its own terms as a simple contractual discharge. The Court is
unable to accept that approach on the record as it stands. The record does not
permit the termination letters to be lifted out of their setting and viewed in
isolation. What preceded them is not collateral background. It is part of the
same chain of events and bears directly on the true character of the final
action taken against the Petitioners.

21. The termination letters dated 5th September, 2018 are, on their face,
tersely worded. They state only that the Petitioners were “found unsuitable”

and that their services were “no longer required” at TDB, while providing
one month’s remuneration in lieu of notice. Had those letters stood alone,
and had the record disclosed a genuine and contemporaneous assessment of

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 13 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56
unsuitability founded on service appraisal, TDB might have been in a
stronger position to invoke the line of authority, including Pavanendra
Narayan Verma and Satish Joshi, which recognises the employer’s right, in
an appropriate case, to discontinue a contractual or probationary appointee
on grounds of unsuitability in terms of the contract. But that is not the record
before the Court. Here, the neutral language of the final order has to be
tested against the entire course of events that led to it.

22. The record, in fact, discloses that the termination letters were
preceded by a documented progression of accusations. On 26 th June, 2018, a
draft SCN on “insubordination” was initiated against Prashant Kumar
Vidyarthi. By 24th and 25th July, 2018, the focus had shifted to a wider set of
concerns arising from the filing of earlier writ proceedings, including the
presence of internal note sheets, annexing of Board minutes, and use of
official communications, which were treated as indicative of improper
access to and misuse of confidential organisational material. The legal
consultant thereafter advised that action be considered against the
Petitioners, and approval followed for issuance of SCNs to all three on what
was described as an “information leak”. On 30th July, 2018, the file further
records that, since an earlier SCN had already been issued to Prashant
Kumar Vidyarthi, a comprehensive notice be put up covering both the
earlier issue and the material emerging from the earlier writ proceedings.

23. Read in that light, the record indicates that the administration had
moved beyond an ordinary contractual review of suitability. It was
proceeding on the footing that the Petitioners were alleged to have acted
improperly, had misused their position as contractual staff, had accessed or
retrieved internal material in an impermissible manner, and had thereby

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 14 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56
breached, or were alleged to have breached, obligations of confidentiality
and trust. The same theme is also reflected from the note dated 8 th June,
2018 of the then Secretary, which records concerns regarding widespread
sharing of information, reluctance to assist newly inducted officers, “anti-
organisational activities”, photocopying of official documents, sharing of
file movements, and a lack of loyalty to the institution.

24. Once the record is read coherently, the expression “found unsuitable”

in the termination letters cannot be accepted as self-explanatory. It
represents the concluding expression rather than the full account reflected in
the record. The record itself shows that the Petitioners were first suspended
in the aftermath of the complaint episode, then drawn into an enquiry
process, thereafter placed on a track that was distinctly conduct-based,
involving allegations of “insubordination”, information leakage, misuse of
access, and breach of trust, and only at the end removed through neutral
language. The form of the final order cannot be permitted to efface the
substance of what preceded it.

25. The service record also bears on that conclusion. The record does not
disclose any contemporaneous material showing poor work, declining
performance, or any appraisal-based conclusion that would naturally support
a finding of unsuitability. What it instead reflects are performance
assessments indicating satisfactory to good levels of work, with gradings
ranging from “Very Good” in some cases to “Good” in others, along with
remarks indicating willingness to take on responsibility and scope for further
duties. The material also includes a recommendation for an appreciation
letter in favour of Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi, as well as an email dated 1 st
April, 2018 from the then Secretary acknowledging the contribution of the

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 15 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56
office staff and describing them as a cohesive and effective unit. These
materials are not being treated as creating any absolute right to continue in
engagement. They do, however, make it difficult to accept that the ground of
unsuitability for termination was a genuine performance-based assessment.

26. This brings the Court to the authorities relied upon by TDB.
Pavanendra Narayan Verma is an important decision in this area. It
explains that the Court must first examine the “form” of the order to
determine whether it is ex facie stigmatic, and, if it survives that scrutiny,
proceed to ascertain the “substance” of what underlies it. It further lays
down that a termination would assume a punitive character where it is
preceded by a full-scale enquiry into allegations of misconduct or moral
delinquency and culminates in a finding of guilt. At the same time, it
clarifies that the mere existence of complaints, dissatisfaction, or even a
preliminary enquiry undertaken to assess suitability would not, by itself,
render an order punitive. The decision, thus, cautions against a mechanical
reading of the order and requires the Court to examine what, in truth, formed
its foundation.

27. Satish Joshi and A.N. Gupta proceed in broadly the same field. They
recognise that where a contractual or tenure appointment is expressly made
subject to review, appraisal, or assessment of suitability, the employer may,
in an appropriate case, discontinue the engagement in terms of the contract,
and the Court will not ordinarily substitute its own view for that of the
employer on questions of performance or utility. Those decisions, however,
proceed on the footing that the action is, in fact, based on an assessment of
performance or suitability in the contractual sense. They do not address a
situation where, on a reading of the record, the employer has moved onto a

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 16 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

28. Satish Joshi, in particular, assists TDB only up to a point. In that
case, the order was expressly grounded in unsatisfactory performance, and
the Court held that, in the case of a contractual appointee, a full
departmental enquiry is not to be insisted upon in the abstract. That
reasoning presupposes that the employer is acting on performance or
suitability. It does not extend to a case where the record discloses that the
action is founded on allegations of misconduct, but the final order adopts
neutral language. As noticed earlier, where the surrounding material
indicates that the termination is, in substance, traceable to allegations of
misconduct, the Court is required to examine its true character rather than
proceed solely on the basis of the language of the final order. The record
here shows a progression through allegations of “insubordination”,
information leakage, misuse of official material, and breach of trust,
followed by a final order which speaks only of unsuitability.

29. The decision in S.S. Shetty is of limited assistance on the question of
the validity of the impugned termination itself. Its principal relevance lies in
the matter of relief. The judgment explains that, in the ordinary law of
master and servant, where a contract of service is terminable by notice,
damages are ordinarily measured with reference to the notice period. It also
recognises that, where the contract is for a fixed term, a different measure
may apply, subject to established principles. At the same time, the decision
also explains, in the context of computation of monetary value of
reinstatement under the framework of the Industrial Disputes Act, that such
exercise is not capable of precise or rigid formulation, and must be
undertaken having regard to the relevant circumstances bearing on the

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 17 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56
employment. The authority is, therefore, relevant on the question of
monetary relief than on the anterior question whether the impugned
termination can be sustained in law. The Court will return to that aspect
while dealing with relief.

30. The Petitioners’ reliance on U.P. State Road Transport and Swati
Priyadarshini is, in the opinion of the Court, considerably closer to the
present case. In U.P. State Road Transport, the Supreme Court held that
even in the case of a contractual engagement, a termination founded on
alleged misconduct cannot be sustained where it is effected without
affording a reasonable opportunity or holding a proper enquiry. The decision
proceeds on the footing that the substance of the action must be examined,
and not merely its contractual form. Swati Priyadarshini articulates this
principle more explicitly. It emphasises that the form of the order is not
conclusive and that the Court is entitled to look behind the language
employed to ascertain the true character of the action. Where the record
discloses that the termination is, in substance, founded on allegations of
misconduct, the action assumes a punitive character and cannot be sustained
in the absence of adherence to the requirements of a fair procedure.

31. The present case lies much closer to that line of authority than to the
decisions dealing with pure unsuitability. There are three reasons for saying
so. First, the Petitioners were not removed against a clean or neutral
background. The complaint episode, the suspension, the internal enquiry,
and the later allegations form part of one continuous sequence. Secondly,
TDB’s own internal notings disclose a conscious move towards initiation of
process of SCN against these Petitioners on allegations of improper retrieval
of official material, misuse of position, breach of trust, and an “information

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 18 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56
leak”. Those are not matters referable to performance alone. They are
allegations directed at conduct. Thirdly, the final order employs the
expression “found unsuitable” without any preceding material of adverse
service appraisal that could reasonably sustain such a conclusion. The
contrast between that language and the service material already noticed is
too stark to be ignored.

32. The Court therefore concludes, on Issue (ii), that the termination
letters dated 5th September, 2018 cannot be treated as mere instances of
simple contractual discharge. On the record before the Court, they represent
the culmination of a process that was punitive in substance. TDB may have
been of the view that there was misuse of internal material or a breakdown
of trust. That, however, is not the decisive point. The decisive point is that, if
TDB intended to act on that basis, it was bound to do so fairly, candidly, and
in accordance with law. It could not proceed on a conduct-based footing and
then seek refuge in the neutral vocabulary of unsuitability at the final stage.

33. That also answers Issue (iii). The contractual notice clause does not
save the impugned action in the facts of the present case. A State
instrumentality cannot rely on such a clause as a means of disregarding the
factual and procedural background that preceded the final order. When the
record itself discloses that the real basis of the action lay in allegations
touching conduct, confidentiality, misuse of access, and loss of trust, the
notice clause cannot convert that action into an innocuous contractual
discontinuance. At the highest, the clause explains the form of the final
order; it does not legitimise the course by which TDB arrived there.

34. That leaves the question of relief. This is a stage at which the Court
must exercise restraint. The Petitioners have succeeded in showing that the

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 19 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56
impugned action is legally unsustainable. It does not follow, however, that
reinstatement must necessarily be ordered as a matter of course. The
Petitioners were contractual appointees. No claim for regularisation is being
pressed in the present batch of matters. TDB’s consistent case, both in
pleading and in submission, has also been that the earlier model of direct
contractual engagement was later discontinued and that, from 2019 onwards,
temporary manpower requirements came to be met through outsourcing
arrangements. The wisdom of that institutional choice is not for the Court to
examine. The point is narrower. A writ court ought to be slow, years after
the event, to reconstruct a contractual arrangement which no longer survives
in that form, or to direct continuation through a placement mechanism that is
itself not the source of the Petitioners’ appointment.

35. At the same time, the Court is not persuaded that the matter can be
reduced to mere payment of one month’s notice pay. That would fail to
reflect the nature of the wrong. The Petitioners were not disengaged in the
ordinary course upon the natural expiry of a contractual term. They were
subjected to an action which, for the reasons already recorded, cannot be
sustained in law. During the proceedings, TDB indicated, without prejudice,
that it was willing to pay salary up to March 2019. That position goes
beyond TDB’s strict contractual stance and, in the facts of the present case,
furnishes a fair and workable measure for moulding relief. It acknowledges
that the termination cannot be upheld, while avoiding the artificiality of
ordering reinstatement into a contractual regime long after the event.

36. In moulding relief in this manner, the Court is not treating TDB’s
offer as the source of its power. The source lies in the Court’s conclusion
that the impugned action is unsustainable and that an appropriate

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 20 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56
consequential remedy must follow. TDB’s stated position is being treated
only as a fair measure, consistent with the nature of the case and the limits
of writ relief in matters of this kind. Full back wages up to the present would
not be warranted. Reinstatement, at this distance of time and in the present
factual setting, would travel too far. Monetary relief up to 31 st March, 2019,
in the Court’s view, strikes a just and balanced course.

37. The operative directions are, accordingly, as follows:

(i) The suspension order dated 22nd April, 2018 and the continuation
order dated 5th May, 2018, insofar as they concern the present Petitioners,
are declared unsustainable in law.

(ii) The termination letters dated 5th September, 2018 issued to the
Petitioners are set aside.

                          (iii)     No direction for reinstatement is issued.
                          (iv)      In lieu of reinstatement, TDB shall pay to each of the Petitioners

contractual emoluments from the respective dates of termination up to 31st
March, 2019, after adjusting any amount already paid, along with simple
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date when the amount became
due till the date of payment.

(v) If any contractual dues referable to the period up to 31 st March, 2019,
including notice pay or unpaid dues relatable to the period of suspension,
remain outstanding, the same shall be computed and released in the same
exercise.

(vi) The computation and payment directed above shall be completed
within a period of eight weeks from today. In default, the unpaid amount
shall carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the expiry of the
said period until realisation.

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 21 of 22

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56

(vii) It is clarified that this order does not confer any right of
regularisation, absorption, continuity in regular service, or appointment
through any outsourcing agency or other future staffing arrangement.

(viii) It is further clarified that the Petitioners’ disengagement shall not be
treated as one founded on proved misconduct.

38. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J
APRIL 16, 2026/ab

W.P.(C) 13651/2018 & other connected matters Page 22 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 20:41:56

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi vs Technology Development Board & Ors on 16 April, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders