Point of Law : Employment and Service matter - Contractual employee - Termination from service - Petitioners' tenure of service has already been completed, not entitled for reinstatement, but when new appointments are made petitioners will be at liberty to move application for appointment in accordance with advertisement/rules and regulations applicable therein.

ORDER :

1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in all these writ petitions, therefore they are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In all of these writ petitions, petitioners, at the relevant point of time, were working as Lecturer on contract basis in Government Engineering and Polytechnic Colleges. On complaint being received that petitioners are undergoing studies for M.E./M.Tech courses in the same colleges where they were working and they have also obtained degrees while working on the said post on contractual basis, an enquiry was conducted by the State Government and finding the allegations against the petitioners to be correct, their services have been terminated by the impugned order (Annexure P/1) under Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 read with Rule 7 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 on the ground that they have obtained degrees of M.E./M.Tech without prior permission of the State Government.

3. Return has been filed by the State opposing the writ petitions stating inter alia that petitioners are guilty of undergoing M.E./M.Tech courses and obtaining degrees without prior permission of the State Government while they were working as Lecturers on contractual basis, which is a serious misconduct on their part and therefore, their services have rightly been terminated.

4. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar and Mr. Rajat Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that petitioners are governed by their appointment orders in which there is no such clause that they cannot undertake any course/degree during their service tenure as Lecturer and even otherwise, while holding the petitioners guilty of misconduct, their services have been terminated without even affording him an opportunity of hearing which is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction and without authority of law.

5. Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned State counsel, would submit that petitioners have been found guilty of undergoing courses of M.E./M.Tech that too, during their continuance of service as Lecturer on contractual basis without obtaining prior permission from the State Government and after holding a brief enquiry, they have rightly been terminated from service.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

7. It is not in dispute that petitioners, at the relevant point of time, were working as Lecturers in Government Engineering and Polytechnic Colleges on contractual basis and it is also not in dispute that while working on the said posts, they have simultaneously obtained degrees of M.E./M.Tech and on complaint, an enquiry was conducted and it was found that petitioners have undertaken the aforesaid courses without prior permission of the State Government. It appears that enquiry was conducted and petitioners were found guilty of the aforesaid allegations against them, but while terminating their services, they were neither subjected to any departmental enquiry nor they have been afforded any opportunity of hearing and extreme penalty of termination from service has been inflicted upon them in accordance with Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 read with Rule 7 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

8. Rule 11(5) of Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 clearly provides that either of both the parties may terminate contract appointment during the period of contract appointment by giving one month's notice in advance or paying one month's salary in its place and the appointment order of the petitioners also provides for such provision, but it has not been complied with and petitioners' services have been terminated holding them guilty of misconduct without even affording them a minimum opportunity of hearing. As such, the order of termination of the petitioners is in teeth of Rule 11(