Disengagement of contractual employees without inquiry or opportunity to be heard violates principles of natural justice, rendering the action punitive and unsustainable.

JUDGMENT

1. Aggrieved of the Order bearing No. 91-JKHC of 2022 dated 16.09.2022 issued by Managing Director of the J&K Handicrafts Corporation, whereby the petitioners, engaged on Consolidated/Need/Contractual/Contingency basis in the Corporation, have been disengaged, the petitioners have challenged the same through the medium of the instant Writ Petition.

2. It is pleaded in the petition that while the grievances of the petitioners with regard to their continuation and absorption in the Corporation was in process, the Managing Director of the Corporation, on the basis of ‘Alert note’ issued by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), disengaged the services of the petitioners vide Order No. 91-JKHC of 2022 dated 16.09.2022, which is impugned in the instant petition, and through the medium of the present petition, the petitioners seek quashment of the same in terms whereof the petitioners have been disengaged; Alert Note No. 48/2022 dated 27.06.2022 issued by Anti Corruption Bureau Srinagar; and communication No. ICHHC/30/2022-02 dated 07.09.2022 in terms whereof request was made to the Managing Director Handicraft & Handloom Corporation to take action against the petitioners with regard to the Alert notice issued by ACB.

3. It has been further prayed to command the respondents to allow the petitioners to perform their duties attached to the posts as was assigned to them on being engaged on consolidated/need/contractual/contingency basis in the respondent-Corporation and grant all the service benefits including wages etc; to release the withheld salary of the petitioners from the date it has been stopped to them and a command be issued to the Committee so constituted by the Government vide Government order No. 234-JK(IND) of 2021 dated 22.11.2021 to examine the cases of the petitioners and also to examine the proposed policy submitted by the Managing Director on 08.01.2021.

4. The brief facts of the case giving rise to filing the instant petition are that the petitioners were engaged in the respondent-Corporation on consolidated/contractual/need/contingency basis from time to time against different posts and have been discharging their duties diligently; that the respondent-Corporation was in the process of formulating policy so as to decide the future of the contractual employees, which was under deliberation and for which the Corporation also constituted a Committee of officers; that on a complaint of some persons before the Anti Corruption Bureau against the then Managing Director, the ACB issued a communication, recommending disengagement of the petitioners for the reasons that these engagements have been made by the abuse of authority by various Managing Directors of the Corporation.

5. Allegedly, without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, their services were disengaged on the recommendations of ACB, when it was incumbent upon the Managing Director to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners by following the principle of natural justice and due course of law; that the fact of the matter is that on the recommendations, the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation have already constituted a Committee and proposed policy was initiated viz-a-viz the petitioners, which was forwarded to the Administrative Department for approval and thereafter 2nd and 3rd meetings were also held; that in the last meeting, on the recommendations of the Board of Directors, a Committee was constituted in November 2021; that the Managing Director was aware of the fact that a Committee had been constituted, therefore, he was legally bound to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before disengaging them because of omission and commission committed by the then Managing Directors; that in other words, according to the petitioners, the petitioners were punished for the alleged acts of various Managing Directors; that the right of enquiry to the petitioners was violated, as such, Article 311 of the Consti