Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 667
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
J.V.V. Satyanarayana - Appellant
Vs.
The State of A.P. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 25419 of 2020
Decided On: 31.12.2020
For the Appellant : K.
A temporary employee can be terminated at any time without a formal inquiry if the termination is not punitive in nature.
Headnote:
CONTRACT TERMINATION - NO NOTICE REQUIRED - UNETHICAL CONDUCT - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED: A temporary employee can be terminated at any time without a formal inquiry if the termination is not punitive in nature. In this case, the petitioner, a contract employee, was terminated for sending a porn link to a devotee. The court held that the petitioner's conduct was unethical and immoral and that he did not deserve any sympathy. The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, holding that he was not entitled to a writ of mandamus as a matter of right.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was a contract employee working as an Editor in the office of the 3rd respondent. A complaint was made by a devotee alleging that he received a porn link in reply to his mail from the petitioner's email address. The 3rd respondent ordered an inquiry into the matter and based on the report of the inquiry officer, the petitioner's services were terminated without issuing any notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's conduct was unethical and immoral and that he did not deserve any sympathy. The court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to a writ of mandamus as a matter of right.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a notice before termination of his contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a temporary employee can be terminated at any time without a formal inquiry if the termination is not punitive in nature. The court also held that the petitioner's conduct was unethical and immoral and that he did not deserve any sympathy.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition.
Koutilya, Advocate
ORDER :
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief:-
"to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in terminating the petitioner from service vide proceedings F. No. : SVBC/CEO/DA/2020-2 dated 14.12.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India consequently set aside the proceedings F. No. SVBC/CEO/DA/2020-2 dated 14.12.2020 and pass such other order or orders."
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as Editor in the office of 3rd respondent on contract basis on 27.11.2008 and re-designated as Editor, Grade IV in the office of the 3rd respondent on 13.12.2011. A complaint was made by one devotee by name Sri Venkata Krishna to the 2nd respondent alleging that he received a porn link in reply to his mail from email address of "Sathamanam Bhavati" department dated 06.11.2020. On such complaint, the 3rd respondent ordered the 4th respondent to enquire into the matter and submit a report on or before 16.11.2020. Thereafter, the 4th respondent submitted his report to the 3rd respondent stating that this petitioner and some others indulged in unethical practice. Basing on the said report, the 3rd respondent issued termination proceedings to the petitioner vide F. No. SVBC/CEO/DA/2020-2, dated 14.12.2020 without issuing any notice. Aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent, the present writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that no notice was issued to the petitioner before termination of contract and no opportunity was afforded to him to give explanation to the proposed action of termination of contract of service and that the action of the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and requested to set aside the above proceedings dated 14.12.2020.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing for R.1 and Sri A. Sumanth, learned Standing Counsel for TTD appearing for R.2 to R.4.
4. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions and mainly contended that no notice was issued to the petitioner before taking action and terminating his service on the allegation that the petitioner sent a porn link to the devotee by email would seriously prejudice the career of this petitioner in future and requested to set aside the same.
5. Learned Senior counsel Sri S.S. Prasad, appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the petitioner was discharging his duties in a pious place but engaged in unethical activities, and therefore, he does not deserve any sympathy and no notice is required to be issued to the petitioner before termination, since the contract of service ends by today.
6. Admittedly, the service of the petitioner was engaged on 27.11.2008 as Editor in the office of the 3rd respondent on contract basis. An agreement was entered into between the 3rd respondent and this petitioner in writing. Later, the petitioner was re-designated as Editor in Grade-IV in the office of the 3rd respondent. However, a devotee by name Sri Venkata Krishna received a porn link in reply to the email sent to Sathamanam Bhavathi department of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple at Tirumala. It was eliminated from the email address of this petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner while discharging his duties in a pious temple indulging in such unethical activities by sending such emails and circulating the same to other employees who in turn sending those messages to the devotees is a matter of serious concern and such person does not deserve any sympathy and his services cannot be continued even on contract basis or otherwise.
7. The law is well settled that a temporary employee can be terminated at any time and if termination is as punishment in nature a formal enquiry is to be c
