The court emphasized the importance of contractual agreements and the justification for termination based on misconduct, while considering the expiration of the agreement.

An order dated 13.01.2023 issued by the Project Director, Assam State AIDS Control Society & Director cum Member Secretary, Assam State Blood Transfusion Council by which the services of the petitioner as Laboratory Technician has been terminated is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

2. The projected case by the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Laboratory Technician by the Project Director, Assam State AIDS Control Society (herein after called the Society) on 16.09.2005 and was allowed to work at the Blood Bank attached to the Guwahati Medical College Hospital (GMCH). Though the period of service was stated to be 6 (six) months, it was extended from time to time. On 11.01.2023 pertaining to an incident occurring in the counter of the aforesaid Blood Bank, and FIR was lodged in the concerned Police Station which was registered as Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 10/2023 under Sections 420/406 IPC. In connection thereto, the petitioner was also arrested and subsequently granted bail by this Court on 30.01.2023. In the meantime, vide the impugned order dated 13.01.2023, the service of the petitioner was terminated. The petitioner had submitted a representation and thereafter has filed the present writ petition.

3. I have heard Shri A. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas Shri P. Nayak, learned counsel has appeared for the respondents.

4. Shri Bhattacharya, learned counsel has submitted that the impugned action was not preceded by any enquiry and the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity. He submits that though there is a provision in the agreement for such termination, an opportunity is a necessity. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has referred to the following case laws:

(i)

AIR 1958 SC 36

[Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India]

(ii) Judgment dated 16.04.2024 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No(s). 8788-8789 of 2023 [Sandeep Kumar vs. GB Pant Institute of Engineering And Technology Ghurdauri & Ors.

5. So far as the case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra (supra) is concerned, reliance has been placed on the concurring judgment of Hon’ble Justice Vivian Bose, wherein it has been laid down that Article 311 of the Constitution of India would apply to all classes of Government Servants whether they are permanent, quasi permanent, officiating, temporary or on probation. The case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) has been relied wherein the termination of service of the appellant therein has been interfered with.

6. Per contra, Shri Nayak, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondent no. 2 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 10.11.2023 opposing the writ petition. He submits that the service of the petitioner with the Society was contractual and bound by the clauses of the agreement. It is submitted that admittedly the petitioner is in service with the Society on the strength of an agreement pursuant to which the initial order dated 16.09.2005 was issued which was for a period of 6 (six) months. By referring to the current agreement dated 02.04.2023 which has been annexed as Annexure I to the affidavit-in-opposition, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 6 thereof which provides for termination of service. The learned counsel has also referred to the averments made in paragraph 9 of the said affidavit-in-opposition as per which, the GMCH authorities had conducted a detail enquiry whereby three nos. of its employees were terminated from service and the said enquiry also reveals the culpability of the petitioner and by considering the same, the impugned order of termination has been passed by the Society.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation vs. Paramjeet Singh reported in (2019) 6 SCC 250. In the said case, the termination of a contractual employee was not interfered with. Reliance has also been made on a