The legal point established is that a contractual employee's termination can be based on the grounds specified in the agreement, after affording the employee an opportunity to show cause, and without the need for a full-fledged regular enquiry.

JUDGMENT :

1) The petitioner has challenged order 19.06.2007 as also notice of termination dated 21.05.2007, issued by respondent No.2, whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated.

2) Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Laboratory Assistant for Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) in terms of appointment order dated 04.10.2004. The term of the petitioner’s engagement was extended in terms of agreement dated 30.10.2005 for a period of 11 months and in the year 2006, by virtue of another agreement his term of engagement was further extended. According to the petitioner, he performed his duties to the best of his ability and satisfaction of his employers, but he was served with a termination notice dated 21.05.2007 by respondent No.3. The petitioner is stated to have responded to the said termination notice, but his explanation did not find favour with respondent No.2, who, without following the principles of nature justice and without holding any enquiry, issued the impugned order of termination dated 19.06.2007.

3) The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents on the grounds that respondent No.3 was not competent to issue the termination notice and that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without holding any enquiry and without adhering to the principles of natural justice, particularly when the order of termination is stigmatic in nature.

4) The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing a reply thereto. In their reply, the responders have submitted that the petitioner was a contractual employee whose agreement for engagement was initially for a period of 11 months, whereafter he was asked to execute further agreements from time to time and lastly, the agreement for renewal of his engagement was executed on 6th September, 2006. It has been submitted that the engagement of the petitioner was made in terms of agreement dated 1st November, 2004 and thereafter in terms of agreement dated 03.10.2005 and lastly in terms of agreement dated 6th September, 2006. It has been submitted that the notice of termination has been issued by respondent No.3 on behalf of respondent No.2 and the order of termination has been issued by a competent authority i.e., respondent No.2. According to the respondents, the petitioner was given ample opportunities to show improvement in his behaviour, but he did no cooperate and continued to behave in an uncivilised and unprofessional manner for which he was warned thrice in terms of letters dated 7th April, 2007, 27th April, 2007 and 8th May, 2007. It has been further submitted that when reply of the petitioner was not found to be plausible, his engagement was terminated in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as a contractual employee with the respondents and, as such, terms of his engagement are governed by the agreement of employment executed by him with the respondents. The termination of the petitioner has been effected by the respondents by taking resort to Clause (11) of the agreement, which reads as under:

11. The ECHS shall have the right to terminate this agreement by giving one month's notice to the Engaged Person or one month's consideration as compensation in lieu thereof without prejudice to the generality of the right of termination may be on any of the following grounds for which an opportunity to show cause will be afforded to him.

(a) Professional incompetence or misconduct or an act of moral turpitude,

(b) Unsatisfactory performance of duty.

(c) Arrest or conviction by a court of law for any offence.

(d) Any act prejudicial to security or interest of the Organisation (ECHS).

(e) Absence of leave beyond 60 days.

(f) Prolonged or habitual absence from duty prior permission of the competent authority including prolonged absence due to medical illn