Service cannot be terminated without proper notice.

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 24.04.2014, delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.6503 of 2014. The writ petition was filed by the sole respondent herein.

2. The appellants issued a notification inviting applications for appointment of Assistant General Manager, on contract basis, for a period of two years extendable subject to certain conditions. The respondent was one of the applicants and in the interview that ensued, he was selected. He was appointed through order, dated 04.03.2013, and he joined duty on 27.03.2013. One month thereafter, he was posted as Divisional Manager at Warangal and he was placed incharge of two hotels, two resorts and boat units.

3. On 29.07.2013, the 2nd appellant issued a charge memo to the respondent alleging certain acts of misconduct. Explanation was submitted thereto by the respondent, on 17.08.2013. Not satisfied with that, the 2nd appellant issued order, dated 20.08.2013, terminating the services of the respondent. Assailing the same, the respondent filed the writ petition. It was pleaded that none of the allegations made against him are true and that no departmental enquiry was conducted. It was also urged that the order of termination has the effect of attaching stigma to him and the same could not have been done unless a departmental enquiry was conducted.

Grievance was also made, as to the non-issuance of notice of one month or payment of salary in lieu thereof, to the respondent.

4. The appellants opposed the writ petition. According to them the appointment of the respondent was purely contractual in nature and the termination was strictly in terms of contract of appointment. They further pleaded that the principles of natural justice were complied with, since a charge memo was issued and explanation, submitted by the respondent, was considered.

5. The learned single Judge took the view that the order of termination has the effect of attaching stigma to the respondent and that such an order could have been passed only after conducting the enquiry and accordingly, allowed the writ petition and directed reinstatement of the respondent. Direction was also issued for payment of salary and other allowances for the period during which he was out of service. Hence, this appeal.

6. Sri A. K. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that admittedly, the appointment of the respondent was under a contract and not on regular basis, and once the respondent is not a regular employee, the question of conducting departmental enquiry does not arise. He submits that the relevant clause for the contract provided for termination without showing any reasons or conducting enquiry; and by its very nature the appointment, for a limited period, is capable of being terminated subject, however, to compliance with the conditions. He further submits that in a representation, dated 14.01.2014, the respondent admitted his lapses and in that view of the matter, holding of an enquiry would be, almost a superfluous exercise.

7. Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that if one takes into account the contents of the charge memo and the language employed in the order of termination, there is no escape from the conclusion that the entire exercise was undertaken to scandalize the respondent and to attach stigma to his career. He submits that had it been a case of termination simplicitor, the appellants would not have chosen to make allegations of misconduct and refer to them, in the order of termination. Learned senior counsel further submits that the appellants themselves have taken a policy decision vide circular, dated 11.01.2011, to the effect that whenever the services of even a contractual employee are terminated, it must be preceded by a departmental enquiry, and that the respondent was singled out, in this behalf. He has drawn the attention of this Court to