If order visits the public servant with any evil consequences or casts an aspersion against his character or integrity, it must be considered to be one by way of punishment.

Heard Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri N. Bharath Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Corporation, apart from perusing the record.

Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

Shorn of extraneous particulars, the brief facts, relevant for the purpose of disposing the writ petition, are that the respondent Corporation issued notification in December, 2012 inviting applications from suitable candidates to fill up several posts, which include those of Assistant General Manager, Divisional Manager, Manager and Assistant Manager. In response to the said notification, when the petitioner applied, in view of his eligibility, experience and suitability, the respondent Corporation appointed him Assistant General Manager on contract basis for a period of 2 years. On such appointment, the petitioner is said to have been posted as Divisional Manager at Warangal.

In course of time, the respondent Corporation issued a memo, dated 29-07-2013, calling upon the petitioner to explain in respect of certain irregularities, such as appointing a receptionist at Haritha Kakatiya and staying at Haritha hotel at subsidised rates. Though the alleged irregularities listed out in the said charge memo are considerable, they need not be listed out, for this Court desires to dispose of the writ petition without touching on the merits of the matter.

In any event, the record reveals that the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 17.08.2013 denying all the allegations, apart from supplying justification as to some of the administrative measures said to have been initiated by the petitioner. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondent Corporation went ahead and terminated the services of the petitioner through Memo No.APTDC/Admn/P2/29/2013, dated 20.08.2013. Though the petitioner made several representations to reconsider its decision, the last of those representations being on 14.01.2014, the respondent Corporation remained unmoved, thus compelling the petitioner to take recourse to public law remedy by filing the present writ petition.

Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the Court through the entire record and has contended that the termination is stigmatic and is without minimal observance of the principles of natural justice. He has contended that the alleged report for the General Manager (Hotels), which is said to have been the basis of terminating the petitioner, was not supplied to the petitioner, nor was there any opportunity given to the petitioner to establish that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were without any basis, much less substance.

Referring to the service conditions, the principal contention, rather leitmotif, of the learned Senior Counsel is that any punishment, even concerning a contract employee, once it is punitive in nature, cannot be inflicted on the delinquent without due process. He has further submitted that even as per clause 3 of the contract, the petitioner ought to have been put on notice one month prior to termination. Adverting to the facts, the learned Senior Counsel has demonstrated that what could be termed as show cause notice was issued on 29.07.2013 and the petitioner was terminated from service on 20.08.2013. The learned Senior Counsel has further referred to clauses 13 and 14 of the Constitution and has stated that the petitioner has not been charged with any activity, illegal or otherwise, unbecoming of a public servant, thus being detrimental to the respondent Corporation. Expatiating the issue further, the learned Senior Counsel has contended that it is not a termination simpliciter, but a termination on specific allegations with stigma attached to them. The learned Senior Counsel has also adverted to the principles o