The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative actions, particularly in the context of terminating contractual employment.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. - In the present civil writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 23.10.2015 (Annexure P-5) whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated.

2. Pursuant to advertisement for the post of Protection Officercum- Child Marriage Prohibition Officer, the petitioner was given appointment letter on 11.11.2008 (P-1) and the petitioner joined on 17.11.2018. The petitioner was also given appreciation letter for his excellent work and conduct (P-2). Vide letter dated 16.11.2011 (P-3), the Government has approved the extension of the contracts for further period of three years. The Government of Haryana has granted extension for three years i.e up to 16.11.2017, vide letter dated 16.12.2014 (P-4). However, vide order dated 23.10.2015 (P-5), the services of the petitioner were ordered to be terminated on the ground that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered vide F.I.R No 604 dated 5.8.2015 Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was appointed on 11.11.2008 as Protection Officer-cum-Child Marriage Prohibition Officer (Female) on contract basis. After registration of FIR No.604 dated 05.08.2015, her services has been terminated vide order dated 23.10.2015 (Annexure P-5). Before registration of said FIR, there was no complaint against her. Thereafter, she approached this Court by filing CWP No.23961 of 2014 with a prayer that she should be allowed to continue her services, as she had served the department for more than three year without any complaint. In the said petition, an interim order was passed on 09.03.2015, whereby she was allowed to continue till regularly selected candidate is available to replace her. Despite the above said order, her services have been terminated vide order dated 23.10.2015. Moreover, after investigation in criminal case, challan (Annexure P-6) has already been presented against one Yogesh, who was a clerk in the office and the petitioner has been found to be innocent as nothing was found against her.

3. Learned counsel inter alia contends that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the petitioner was working since 2008 and has also been awarded appreciation letter. Further, challan was present against one Yogesh, who was clerk in the office and the petitioner has been found innocent.

4. Reference has been made to a judgment of Kerala High Court in a case of Prince George v. Government of Kerala , (1993) 3 SCT 296 wherein petitioner was appointed as Public Prosecutor for a period of three years. However, his services were terminated before expiry of the term of the appointment. The petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside and it was held that though the services of the petitioner were contractual but still could not be terminated in violation to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and principles of Natural Justice. Mere fact that the name of the petitioner is included in an F.I.R is not sufficient enough to terminate the service unless he is proved guilty and unfit to hold the post. In para No. 13, 15, 17, 20 and 21, it has been observed as under:-

"13. The question therefore is whether it is open to the Government to terminate the services of the petitioner on the basis of the above mentioned materials without conducting any enquiry into the allegation and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to put forward his case. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1972 SC 283 : (1975) 3 SCC 851 : 1971 (II) SCWR 446 : AIR 1973 SC 491 and 1964 (1) Crl. LJ. 224 (supra) , it has to be taken that a mere inclusion of petitioner's name in the FIR cannot be a reason to terminate his services. This is not even a case where any criminal charge has been framed against the petitioner and he is facing a trial. It is open to the Government to enquire into the allegation made against the petitioner without waiting for the culmination of the criminal investigation and further proceedings. If in the enquiry