IMPORTANT POINT
Termination based on misconduct allegations requires adherence to natural justice principles, including the right to a hearing, even for contract employees.

ORDER :

Heard Sri Pamarthy Rathnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Nageswar Rao, learned counsel representing Smt.R.Sudha Rani, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2, 4, 6 to 8.

2. The writ petition is filed impugning the proceedings vide ESE13- KGBV/5/2024-SAI-SS-ANKP dated 06.03.2024 issued by the 6th respondent whereby terminating the petitioner’s service with immediate effect and canceling the contract between the petitioner and the 7th respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been working as a Contract Residential Teacher (CRT) (Telugu) since 23.04.2011 at Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Devarapalli, Anakapalli District. The petitioner participated in selections and was appointed as CRT in the year 2011. The agreement entered between the petitioner and the 7th respondent, has been renewed year to year. Be that as it may, the petitioner’s services were terminated on the ground that the petitioner sent What’s App messages to other group members i.e., staff working in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya and demanded bribes of Rs.2,80,000/- for regularization of the salaries under the Minimum Time Scale. No inquiry was conducted before terminating the petitioner from service and canceling the contract. He would submit that the respondent authority violated the principles of natural justice and issued the proceedings and thus, the Proceedings impugned dated 06.03.2024 are liable to be set aside.

4. Sri Nageswar Rao, learned counsel on the other hand would contend that the petitioner by sending What’s App messages demanded the amount from staff working in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya for regularization of their salaries under minimum time scale. He would submit that a case in Crime No.105 of 2024 on the file of the Anakapalli Town police Station was registered against the petitioner. He would submit that the respondent authorities terminated her services in terms of a Clause contained in the contract. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. The point for consideration is whether the Proceedings dated 06.03.2024 issued by the 6th respondent terminating the petitioner from service as CRT and canceling the contract are sustainable.?

6. As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute about the selection and appointment of the petitioner as a Teacher in 2011. There is also no dispute that the petitioner has been working on a contract and the contract has been renewed year to year. In the proceedings impugned it was stated as follows:

“3. That on scrutiny of the services of the individual, it is observed that the individual has provoked staff working in KGBVs through Whatsapp group and demanded bribe upto Rs.2.80 Lakhs from the staff working in each KGBV, for regularization of their salaries under Minimum Time Scale and to handover the collected money to the Officials concerned who helped in the item of work.”

The proceedings would further indicate that such a message was sent at 10.10 pm on 04.03.2024.

7. Thus, the petitioner’s services were terminated on the grounds of misconduct and cheating of co-teachers.

8. If the allegation, as pointed out in the impugned proceedings is accepted, it would cause stigma on the petitioner. It would hamper the future prosperity of the petitioner. Even in the case of a contract employee, whenever service is terminated by stigmatizing the employee, the authority shall follow the principles of natural justice.

9. In Director General of Police & Ors. Vs. Mrityunjoy Sarkar & Ors., (1996) 8 SCC 280 the Apex Court observed as under:

“In the discharge order, it was stated that the respondents had exercised the power under Rule 34(b) of the West Bengal Service Regulations (Part I) and the instructions contained in Memo No.4145(2) dated November 22, 1985 of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, West Bengal. It is not in dispute that the Commissioner of Labour in his letter dated September 5/7, 1985 had in