Termination orders should not be a camouflage for punishment and should not circumvent the constitutional provisions, especially in cases of alleged misconduct.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner, who was serving as an Accountant with the Town Municipal Council, Badami, has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent, vide Annexure-A, terminating her services and consequently to reinstate the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an Accountant on temporary basis by the 2nd respondent-Town Municipal Council vide appointment order dated 03.10.2008. There afterwards, the petitioner was continuously serving in the 2nd respondent without there being any interruption. The petitioner, along with other similarly situated employees had approached this Court in W.P. No. 103135/2016 and connected writ petitions seeking regularization of her service and the said writ petitions was disposed of by this Court on 20.02.2017 directing the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioners therein for regularization and till such consideration, the services of the petitioners was directed not to be disturbed. There afterwards, the petitioner received a show cause notice alleging that the petitioner had remained absent and her absence had caused hindrance to various projects of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner on receipt of the show cause notice dated 04.05.2018 vide Annexure-C, has given a reply to the same on 13.06.2018 vide Annexure-D. There afterwards, the 3rd respondent without holding any enquiry has terminated the services of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not absented herself as alleged in the show cause notice. He submits that only after this Court had disposed of petitioner’s writ petition seeking regularisaton of service, the present action has been taken to terminate the services of the petitioner. He submits that the present action is a camouflage and the only intention of the 2nd respondent was to terminate the services of the petitioner. He submits that though a reply was given to the show cause notice, the same has not been considered and no enquiry has been held prior to passing of the order impugned. He submits that in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner even the period of absenteeism has not been mentioned and in spite of all these defects, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order impugned terminating the services of the petitioner. He submits that the order impugned is not a termination simplicitor and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner could not have passed an order without holding any enquiry. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 3 and Sri Prakash Hosamane, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 argued in support of the impugned order contending that even if the reply given by the petitioner is perused, there is no satisfactory explanation for her absenteeism. They also submit that since the petitioner’s appointment was on contract basis, no enquiry is required to be held for terminating her services as the order impugned is nothing but a termination simplicitor and it will not carry any stigma on the petitioner.

5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material on record.

6. The petitioner, admittedly, was appointed as an Accountant on temporary basis by the 2nd respondent on 03.10.2008. The petitioner has been continuously serving in the 2nd respondent and she had also made representations to regularize her services and there afterwards she had approached this Court along with other similarly situated employees in W.P. No. 103135/2016 and other connected writ petitions and this Court disposed of the said writ petitions vide order dated 20.02.2017 directing the competent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners t