A termination order for a contractual employee that is stigmatic (based on misconduct) requires adherence to the principles of natural justice, specifically the opportunity to be heard, as it carries the trappings of dismissal and affects future employment prospects.

ORDER :

SUMAN SHYAM, J.

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. M. Deka, learned counsel as well as Mr. T. A. Choudhury and Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in this batch of writ petitions. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam, appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions were engaged under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam, on contractual basis as Accredited Engineers/Computer Assistant/Gram Rozgar Sahayak. However, their services were terminated by the orders under challenge in the respective writ petition by giving them one month salary in lieu of notice on the ground that the preliminary enquiry conducted against the petitioners had disclosed irregularities committed by them in course of their service. The orders of termination have been challenged primarily on the ground that those have been issued in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.

3.For the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, the facts involved in WP(C) 1785/2022 are discussed herein below :-

4. The petitioner in WP(C) 1785/2022 was appointed as a Computer Assistant vide appointment order dated 02/11/2018. The engagement of the petitioner was purely on contractual basis and pursuant to a selection process conducted by the department. However, his services were terminated by the impugned order dated 30/10/2021. The order of termination mentions that an enquiry in connection with alleged misappropriate of fund under the MGNREGA and PMAY-G in the Borkhetri Development Block under Nalbari district was conducted, whereafter, a report was submitted. Taking note of the findings in the enquiry report, the department of Panchayat and Rural development Department, Government of Assam had issued instruction to terminate the contractual service of the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order of termination was issued.

5. Mr. Choudhury submits that the order of termination from service is stigmatic and is founded on an allegation of misconduct. Therefore, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without giving him an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

6. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam, has fairly submitted that the order of termination is based on allegations of misconduct emanating from the findings in the enquiry report but since the petitioner was on contractual service, hence, he was not served with any show-cause notice before terminating his services. Mr. Dutta has further submitted that no order of reinstatement of service be issued by this Court. Alternatively, even if such an order is issued, Mr. Dutta submits that the department be granted liberty to proceed in the matter after serving notice upon the petitioner and in the meantime, the petitioner be allowed to be placed under suspension.

7. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that as long as the authorities proceed in accordance with law and by following the Principles of Natural Justice, he would not have any objection in the matter. Similar is the submission of counsel for the petitioners in the other writ petitions.

8. It is no doubt correct that in case of a contractual engagement, the terms and conditions of the contract would govern by the service conditions of the employee. In the present case, the contract agreement signed by the petitioner does have a clause permitting termination of the contract at any point of time if the services rendered by the contractual staff was not found to be satisfactory. However, what is to be noted herein that bare perusal of the impugned order of termination demonstrates on the face of the record that the same was issued on the basis of findings of the enquiry proceeding conducted behind the back of the petitioner wherein, it had been projected that the petitioner was