The Delhi High Court has stayed the termination of a Deputy Director with the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC), observing that the impugned order prima facie carried allegations of misconduct and could not be treated as a simple contractual termination.
Justice Sanjeev Narula passed the interim order in a writ petition challenging DERC’s office order dated May 14, 2026, terminating the petitioner’s contractual engagement with immediate effect.
Petitioner, a Chartered Accountant who had served DERC for nearly 13 years as Deputy Director (Tariff Accounting & Financial Analysis), argued that her termination was illegal, stigmatic and issued without following principles of natural justice. Notably, the impugned office order cited “continuous adverse performance, indiscipline and regular absence from office” as grounds for termination.
Before the Court, the petitioner contended that under the DERC (Management and Development of Human Resources) Regulations, 2001, the Chairperson of DERC was the competent appointing and disciplinary authority for Group ‘A’ posts. Since the Chairperson’s post was vacant at the relevant time, it was argued that the remaining members of the Commission could not have validly exercised such power collectively as the Commission.
The petition also alleged that the termination was punitive in nature and violated Regulation 10(d) of the 2001 Regulations, which required one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof before terminating a contractual employee.
The Court found prima facie merit in the submissions. Justice Narula observed:
The order expressly attributes to the Petitioner ‘continuous adverse performance’, ‘indiscipline’ and ‘regular absence from office’. Such allegations, at least prima facie, bear the colour of misconduct rather than mere non-renewal or cessation of a contractual engagement.”
The Court further observed that whether the issuance of inter-office memoranda and consideration of the petitioner’s replies constituted a sufficient basis to terminate her services without following the disciplinary framework would require closer examination.
The Court also noted prima facie merit in the petitioner’s contention regarding the competence of the authority issuing the impugned termination order, observing that the post of Chairperson designated as the appointing and disciplinary authority for Group ‘A’ posts under the 2001 Regulations was vacant at the relevant time. The Court said the question whether the remaining members of the Commission, acting collectively as the “Hon’ble Commission”, could exercise such powers in the absence of the Chairperson would require consideration.
Accordingly, the High Court stayed the operation of the termination order dated May 14, 2026 and directed that the petitioner would continue to discharge her duties under the subsisting contractual arrangement till the next date of hearing. The Court, however, clarified that the protection would operate only during the subsistence of the petitioner’s existing contractual tenure and that DERC would remain at liberty to take an appropriate decision regarding extension or renewal of the contract in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in the order.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 16, 2026.
