In a recent and significant pronouncement, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed one of the cornerstones of administrative law and service jurisprudence — that no employee can be dismissed or penalised on a charge that was never mentioned in the show-cause notice.
The judgment in Ravi Oraon v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025 INSC 1212), delivered by Justices Dipankar Datta and K.V. Viswanathan, reiterates that principles of natural justice cannot be compromised, even in cases of alleged irregularities in recruitment or qualification verification.
The case arose from the arbitrary termination of three teachers in Jharkhand — Ravi Oraon, Premlal Hembrom, and Surendra Munda — whose services were ended on grounds not included in their show-cause notices. The Court’s ruling restores their dignity, pay, and continuity of service while sending a clear message to all authorities: due process is not a mere formality; it is the foundation of fairness.
Background of the Case
Facts in Brief
The appellants were appointed in December 2015 as Intermediate Trained Teachers (Classes I–V) under an advertisement issued on 10 August 2015 by the District Education Superintendent, Dhanbad. They belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category and were considered eligible for a 5% relaxation in minimum marks under the recruitment rules.
However, on 27 September 2016, the authorities issued show-cause notices alleging that the teachers had failed to secure the minimum 45% marks in their Intermediate (Class XII) examination and questioning the validity of their graduation certificates.
In response, the teachers clarified that:
- As Scheduled Tribe candidates, they required only 40% marks under the rules.
- They had secured 42.55%, 40.22%, and 41.33% respectively in Intermediate examinations.
- Graduation degrees were not a prerequisite for teaching Classes I–V.
Despite these clarifications, the Department terminated their services on 7 October 2016 on a completely different ground — that they had secured less than 40% marks after excluding the marks obtained in the vocational subjects.
This alteration of the basis of termination — from failure to obtain 45% to less than 40% marks — without issuing a fresh notice became the crux of the controversy.
Judicial History
Single Judge’s Decision
The teachers approached the Jharkhand High Court through separate writ petitions. The Single Judge found in their favour, holding that:
- They had indeed secured more than 40% marks when vocational subjects were included.
- The Department had acted on an erroneous interpretation of the rules.
- Termination based on a show-cause notice without holding a departmental inquiry was unjustified.
Consequently, the Single Judge quashed the termination orders.
Division Bench’s Reversal
The State of Jharkhand filed intra-court appeals, and the Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s orders. It held that:
- Marks in vocational subjects could not be included while calculating eligibility.
- There was “no violation of natural justice,” since the facts were “not in dispute.”
- Even without a fresh notice, the Department’s action was valid under Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012.
Aggrieved by this, the teachers approached the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court examined two primary issues:
- Whether the appellants’ services could be terminated on a ground that was not mentioned in the show-cause notice?
- Whether the exclusion of marks in vocational subjects was permissible under the 2012 Rules while determining eligibility?
Court’s Analysis and Findings
1. Validity of Graduation Certificates
The State had initially questioned the authenticity of the teachers’ graduation degrees obtained from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar. However, this controversy had already been settled by the Jharkhand High Court in Vijoy Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (2022), where it was held that all degrees awarded by the Vidyapeeth prior to 26 February 2015 were valid. Consequently, the Supreme Court treated the teachers’ degrees as legitimate.
2. Inclusion of Vocational Marks
A major bone of contention was whether marks obtained in vocational subjects could be counted toward the 40% eligibility threshold.
Appellants’ Argument
They relied on the guidelines printed on the reverse side of their marksheets, which stated:
“The marks obtained by a candidate in vocational subjects over and above the pass marks (theory and practical taken together) will be added in aggregate to improve his/her result and determine division.”
Hence, when bonus marks in vocational subjects were included, all appellants scored above 40%, satisfying the eligibility condition for Scheduled Tribe candidates.
Respondents’ Argument
The State argued that Rule 21(A)(ii)(A) of the 2012 Rules excluded marks obtained in any “additional subject” while calculating the educational merit point. Therefore, vocational marks could not be counted.
Supreme Court’s Interpretation
- The Court observed that Rule 21 applies only to the preparation of merit lists for appointment, not to determining eligibility for appearing in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). Eligibility, it held, is governed by Rule 4, which does not exclude vocational marks.
Quoting the judgment:
“Rule 21 is in no way concerned with providing a mechanism for deciding whether a candidate is eligible or not. That consideration falls within the exclusive domain of Rule 4.”
Therefore, the Department’s reliance on Rule 21 was misplaced, and the inclusion of vocational marks was perfectly valid.
3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
This was the heart of the case. The Supreme Court found that the Department had altered the charge midway — a classic example of procedural unfairness.
- The show-cause notice accused the appellants of not securing 45% marks.
- Their reply successfully demonstrated compliance with the 40% requirement.
- Yet, the termination orders cited a different ground altogether — that they scored less than 40% marks due to exclusion of vocational marks.
The Court declared this process unconstitutional and “shocking to conscience.”
“Findings were returned by the respondents which were at variance with the allegations levelled in the show-cause notices. The appellants having successfully defended the allegations, the respondents were precluded in law from proceeding with such notices.”
The Court underscored that no person can be punished for a charge not made known to them, as it violates the audi alteram partem principle — the right to a fair hearing.
Flawed Reliance on Escorts Farms
The Division Bench had cited Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division (2004) to justify that no fresh notice was required when facts are undisputed. The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, stating that the facts here were indeed disputed and that a fair opportunity could have altered the outcome.
“Complying with natural justice principles would not have been an idle formality or the decision a foregone conclusion.”
Thus, the termination orders were vitiated for violation of natural justice.
4. The Court’s Approach to Administrative Fairness
By reaffirming that procedural impropriety constitutes a valid ground for judicial interference, the Court made it clear that compliance with natural justice is not an empty formality but a substantive safeguard to ensure the rule of law in administrative functioning.
Final Directions and Relief
Having found the termination illegal and arbitrary, the Supreme Court granted the following reliefs:
Setting Aside Termination and Reinstatement
- The orders of termination were quashed.
- The appellants Ravi Oraon and Premlal Hembrom were to be treated as continuously in service since December 2015, with full arrears of pay and continuity in seniority.
Limited Relief for Deceased Appellant
- The third appellant, Surendra Munda, had passed away during the pendency of litigation. His termination was set aside posthumously.
- His heirs were entitled to full arrears of pay up to the date of his death, and the Court directed that he be deemed to have died in harness, making his family eligible for compassionate appointment.
Time-bound Compliance
- The State was ordered to release arrears to the surviving appellants within three months and process benefits for the heirs of the deceased within the same period.
The Court’s closing words reflected both firmness and fairness:
“The respondents had acted in a high-handed, arbitrary, and illegal manner in terminating the services of the appellants without justifiable reason and without following due process.”
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
1. Fresh Show-Cause Notice Is Mandatory for New Charges
When an employer intends to act on a new ground not contained in the original notice, a fresh notice and opportunity to respond are indispensable. Failure to do so invalidates the action.
2. Rule Interpretation Must Be Contextual
The Court drew a clear line between eligibility rules (Rule 4) and merit preparation rules (Rule 21). Authorities must apply rules within their proper scope; otherwise, administrative decisions risk being arbitrary.
3. Inclusion of Vocational Subjects
The inclusion of vocational marks was held legitimate where the marking scheme itself prescribed that such marks improve a candidate’s aggregate score. Administrative authorities cannot override such academic regulations without statutory backing.
4. Natural Justice: Substantive, Not Symbolic
The judgment reiterates that compliance with natural justice cannot be reduced to a procedural checkbox. It is a substantive right of every individual facing civil consequences.
5. Relief Must Reflect Both Justice and Practicality
While restoring pay and seniority, the Court declined to count the period of unemployment toward teaching experience, recognising that practical teaching involves active engagement with students. This nuanced approach balanced fairness with administrative logic.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ravi Oraon v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. is a textbook reaffirmation of due process in disciplinary actions. It reiterates that:
- Charges must be specific and communicated clearly.
- No one can be condemned unheard.
- Administrative fairness is not optional but constitutional.
By restoring the appellants’ rights, the Court not only corrected an injustice but also preserved the integrity of the public service system. It sends a powerful message that “justice delayed need not mean justice denied” when constitutional principles guide judicial conscience.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams