Termination of a contractual employee upon the expiry of their term is not inherently punitive; it only assumes a punitive character if the termination is founded on proven misconduct rather than mere background motive such as pending criminal allegations.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Dev Choudhury, J.

1. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 06.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition being WP(C) No.3949/2023.

2. By the said writ petition, the petitioner assailed the order dated 19.06.2023, by which he was released from contractual service, on the ground that the contract entered into between the petitioner and the employer had expired on 30.11.2022.

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that, pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2002 by the authorities of the Axom Sarba Siksha Abhiyan Mission, the appellant/petitioner was appointed to the post of Finance & Accounts Officer. The appointment was purely contractual and governed by the terms of the agreement executed by the parties. Initially, the agreement was for a period of 1 year, which was thereafter renewed from time to time, enabling the appellant/petitioner to continue in service. The last agreement between the appellant/petitioner and the authorities of Axom Sarba Siksha Abhiyan Mission was executed on 01.02.2022 and covered the period from 01.01.2022 to 30.11.2022.

4. It is not in dispute that, after 30.11.2022, no further agreement was executed, and the contractual tenure of service of the appellant/petitioner ended by efflux of time, though he continued to serve.

5. Subsequently, on an allegation of an excess payment being debited from the employer's account, allegedly involving the accountant of Axom Sarba Siksha Abhiyan Mission, Dibrugarh, and the appellant/petitioner, an FIR was lodged on 04.05.2023 and registered as Dibrugarh PS Case No.255/2023, under sections 406/409 IPC. The accountant was arrested and later released on bail. The appellant/petitioner was also arrested and was enlarged on bail by the Jurisdictional Magistrate under an order dated 12.05.2023.

6. On 05.05.2023, the appellant/petitioner was directed to submit his clarification regarding the missing RIDF files, to which he responded with a reply dated 22.05.2023. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 31.05.2023 was issued, which was also duly replied to by the appellant/petitioner.

7. Eventually, by order dated 19.06.2023, the appellant/petitioner was released from contractual engagement on the ground that his contract had expired on 30.11.2022. Aggrieved, the appellant/petitioner approached this court by filing WPC 3949/2023.

8. The learned single Judge, upon consideration of the pleadings and submissions, dismissed the written petition, holding that the release order was non-stigmatic and was referable solely to the expiry of the contractual tenure.

9. Assailing the said judgment, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has contended that though the impugned order is innocuous in form, it is in substance punitive, having regard to the pendency of the criminal case, issuance of notices, and allegations of misappropriation. It is urged that the order is a camouflage and is adopted to dispense with the appellant’s services without holding a departmental inquiry, in violation of principles of natural justice.

10. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention.

11. At the outset, it should be noted that the appellant/petitioner was a contrac