Termination orders with allegations of misconduct require a formal inquiry and adherence to natural justice, even for contractual employees.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2 – Vice-Chancellor, vide Annexure-S, relieving the petitioner from the post of temporary Guest Lecturer in the University and also ordered not to accept his application for appointment to the post of Guest Lecturer in the respondent-University, for a period of three years.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Guest Lecturer in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication in Bangalore North University, Kolar, in the year 2018, for the academic year 2018-19. After short break, again for the next academic year, a fresh appointment order has been issued. Likewise, he was continuing till 2023-24. Last of the appointment order dated 07.12.2024 vide Annexure-C is for the academic year 2024-25, for a period of ten months, with certain conditions. In the academic year 2024- 25, when he was working as a Guest Lecturer in the University, on allegations, by the impugned order vide Annexure-S dated 09.04.2025, the petitioner has been relieved from the service and it was also ordered not to accept his application for appointment as Guest Lecturer in the University for a further period of three years. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Sri Ashwathappa, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:

(i) Firstly, the impugned order – Annexure-S is passed without giving any notice to the petitioner. The same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) Secondly, in the impugned order, there is a serious allegation made against the petitioner. There are 12 charges made against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order – Annexure-S is in a punitive nature and it causes stigma on the petitioner. Under these circumstances, without giving notice to the petitioner and without conducting an enquiry, the impugned order has been passed. Hence, the same is unsustainable.

(iii) Thirdly, in the impugned order, there is prohibition for the petitioner to apply for the Guest Lecturer post in the University for a period of three years from 09.04.2025. Such an order has been passed without the authority of law, and the same is contrary to the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the respondents cannot replace one set of temporary employees by another set of temporary employees. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others , (2007) 13 SCC 292 and in the case of Manish Gupta and Another vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and Others , (2022) 15 SCC 540 .

(iv) Fourthly, vide Annexure-E dated 30.12.2024, it is alleged that the petitioner has conducted a press meet and made allegations against the Higher Education Minister and the Deputy Commissioner. Pursuant to that notice, petitioner submitted a detailed reply stating that no allegation has been made against the Minister or the Deputy Commissioner. As a citizen of this Country and a resident of Kolar District, since the Kolar District is declared as a Mines effected area, the grant sanctioned by the Government has not r