Due process is required even for contract employees facing stigmatic termination, emphasizing the necessity of an enquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order dated 12.04.2022, by which the services of the petitioner came to be terminated.

2. Heard Sri.M.S.Haravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.C.V.Angadi, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

3. The facts in brief germane are as follows:

On 30.08.2010, the petitioner was appointed by the 3^rd respondent as a Community Development Expert to work in the 4^th respondent–Corporation on a contract basis. Owing to certain misconduct and allegations that surfaced after two years of service, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 08.03.2012. The petitioner challenged the said termination order before this Court in Writ Petition No.63207 of 2012, which came to be allowed by setting aside the order of termination. The State challenged the said order before the Division Bench. The Division Bench by its order dated 07.10.2021, dismissed the writ appeal. The State then challenges the same before the Apex Court. The Apex Court grants an interim order of stay.

4. In the interregnum, the petitioner invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Owing to the notice issued in the contempt proceedings, the petitioner was reinstated into service. The petitioner therefore continued in service until the Apex Court disposed of the petition in the year 2022.

5. After disposal of the matter, the petitioner was allowed to work for a period of four years. Later, on 13.04.2022, the services of the petitioner were again terminated on the very same allegations that had arisen in the year 2011. It is this order that is called in question in the present petition.

6. The learned counsel, Sri M.S. Haravi, appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner has, throughout, been terminated without the conduct of any enquiry, notwithstanding the fact that the order of termination casts a serious stigma upon him. He would therefore submit that holding an enquiry was imperative, as the petitioner would have produced all the evidence necessary to establish his innocence. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order be set aside and the respondents be directed to hold an enquiry, with all consequential benefits.

7. Per contra, the learned HCGP would defend the action of the State in terminating the services of the petitioner, taking this Court through the statement of objections and contending that serious misconduct is attributed to the petitioner and that he was a contract employee. In terms of the conditions of the contract, his services have been terminated. Therefore, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. The facts narrated above are all matters of record.

The appointment of the petitioner was on 30.08.2010 in the 4^th respondent–Corporation on a contract basis. Owing to certain allegations, his services came to be terminated on 08.03.2012. The services of the petitioner were terminated without notice being made to or enquiry being conducted against the petitioner.

10. The petitioner challenged the termination of his services in Writ Petition No.63207/2012, which comes to be allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.03.2021 by the following order:

6. “It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Community Development Expert under the scheme titled as Urban Poverty Alleviation Cell in District Urban Development Cell and seven City Corporations. It is also not in dispute that the 1st respondent has issu