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

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

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 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

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders