Point of law: Contractual Employee - Order of termination of a temporary employee or a probationer or even a tenure employee, simpliciter without casting any stigma may not be interfered with by court. But court is not debarred from looking at attendant circumstances, prior to issuance of order of termination to find out whether alleged inefficiency really was motive for order of termination for same order.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Bhawesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The petition is being decided on merit at the admission stage, on consent, without calling for counter affidavit as per Rules of the Court.

3. The facts, inter se, parties are not in dispute.

4. The facts giving rise to the instant petition, briefly stated, is that petitioner came to be appointed conductor on contract with the respondent-Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mathura (for short ‘Transport Corporation’) in January 2007. The contract of service is for a period of 11 months which has been renewed from time to time by executing subsequent contract. The copy of the contract executed on 7 July 2020 by the petitioner has been supplied by learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The petitioner came to be terminated earlier by order dated 22 August 2018, passed by the third respondent, Assistant Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Taj Depot, Agra, on the ground of misconduct, alleging that petitioner while on duty on bus No. U.P. 85H9600 entered into an altercation. F.I.R. came to be lodged on 22 August 2018 against 13 named persons and 14 unknown persons. Petitioner was admitted to bail by the competent court.

6. Aggrieved, petitioner challenged the termination order in a petition being Writ-A No. 808 of 2020, which came to be allowed vide order dated 17 January 2020. The matter was remanded to the concerned authority for proceeding afresh, in accordance with law on specific charges of misconduct. A further direction was issued to reinstate the petitioner. Pursuant thereof, petitioner came to be reinstated on 18 February 2020. It is urged that before the enquiry came to be concluded petitioner came to be attached/ transferred, due to shortage of staff, to Taj Depot, Agra, from the present place of posting at Mathura, vide order dated 4 November 2020. Pursuant thereof, petitioner came to be relieved vide order dated 5 November 2011, passed by the Additional Regional Manager, Mathura. Petitioner by the impugned order came to be terminated for not joining and rendering service at the place of attachment in terms of the contract.

7. It is urged that neither the order of attachment was served upon the petitioner nor it was marked to the petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner, thereafter, fell seriously ill on 3 November 2020 and was advised bed rest by the doctor at district hospital Mathura. The parcha of the hospital shows that petitioner was complaining of low back pain. It appears that the third respondent vide communication dated 28 November 2020, demanded the medical certificate in support of his illness. Petitioner responded but did not submit the medical certificate dated 4 November 2020, which records that petitioner was suffering from low back pain and was advised bed rest for four weeks.

8. It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that without considering the fact that the letter reached the petitioner on 4 December 2020, by the impugned order dated 5 December 2020, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated. The order of termination is under challenge.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order terminating the services of the petitioner is vitiated for the reason that no opportunity of hearing was provided; petitioner was advised bed rest from 4 November 2020 for four weeks, therefore, he could not report at the place of attachment; the impugned order is punitive in nature; fulfledged departmental enquiry was not conducted; nor charge sheet was issued. In other words the order of punishment is punitive, arbitrary and not as per terms of the contract.

10. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the services of the petitioner came to be dispensed with as per terms and conditions of the contract; petitioner had not reported at the place of posting and