Termination Based On Caste Status Without Cancellation Of Original Certificate Is Legally Unsustainable: Orissa High Court

"Unless and until the certificate issued... is cancelled in accordance with law, benefit of the certificate cannot be taken away." Orissa High Court, in a ruling dated October 7, 2026, held that an employer cannot unilaterally terminate an employee on grounds of caste-based fraud when the original caste certificate, issued by a competent authority, remains valid and uncancelled.

A bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy observed that an employer cannot rely on internal inquiries or correspondence with revenue authorities to override a statutory caste certificate without first following the due process of law to cancel that certificate.

The petitioner, Debendra Mangual, was appointed to Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) in 1971 under the Scheduled Caste quota, relying on a certificate identifying him as belonging to the 'Mala' sub-caste. After over two decades of service and multiple promotions, the employer initiated disciplinary proceedings in 1995, alleging that the petitioner belonged to the 'Malha' sub-caste—which the company claimed was not an SC category—and subsequently terminated his services in 1997.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether an employer can summarily reject a validly issued caste certificate through an internal departmental inquiry, and whether an order of termination based on material not supplied to the employee during the disciplinary proceedings violates the principles of natural justice.

Court Rejects Unilateral Verification

The court found that while the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of an internal one-man inquiry committee—which had actually exonerated the petitioner—it relied upon external letters from a Tahasildar and District Welfare Officer to justify the termination. Crucially, these letters were never provided to the petitioner during the disciplinary process, a blatant violation of natural justice.

Departmental Inquiry Cannot Supersede Statute

The bench emphasized that the 'Mala' sub-caste is explicitly recognized as a Scheduled Caste under the Constitutional (Scheduled Castes) Order. Because the petitioner's original certificate had never been challenged or cancelled by the appropriate state authorities, the employer’s unilateral conclusion that the petitioner committed fraud was legally flawed and lacked a statutory basis.

"No Evidence To Support Charge"

The court noted that the petitioner’s case was indistinguishable from the precedent set in Damodar Mohapatra vs. Union of India & Ors., where the High Court had previously quashed a similar termination order against an HAL employee under identical circumstances. The appellate authority’s failure to adhere to this settled position rendered its rejection of the petitioner’s appeal unsustainable.

"The order of termination... cannot sustain legal scrutiny and accordingly are not sustainable in the eye of law."

The court further highlighted that the authorities failed to provide the petitioner with copies of the specific documents used to disqualify his caste status. By relying on ex-parte communications, the employer denied the petitioner the opportunity to effectively contest the evidence against him, rendering the disciplinary action procedurally and legally void.

In its final order, the High Court quashed the termination order and the subsequent appellate order. The court directed that the petitioner be deemed to have continued in service until his date of superannuation, entitling him to all consequential service and financial benefits. The employer has been directed to complete the implementation of this order within three months.

Date of Decision: 07 October 2026