A contractual employee cannot be terminated without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing as per the terms of the contract.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lias been filed by the petitioner who is contractual employee seeking quashment of the order of termination of his service dated 16-2-2017 Annexure P-14 and the order dated 4-8-2017 Annexure P-17 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner.

2. The facts which are not in dispute in the present case that the petitioner was initially appointed vide order dated 3-11-2007. His appointment was extended on year to year basis and the last extension was as per order dated 18-7-2016. The services of the petitioner was terminated as per order dated 16-2-2017 vide Annexure P-14 on the basis of a complaint received from Smt. Vijaykanti Patel, member of Congress Committee, 30 Anand Colony, Baldevbag, Jabalpur. On the said complaint, a committee was constituted for a preliminary enquiry, wherein it was found that under the MANREGA scheme, for the financial year 2015-16, payment of Rs. 161.04 lakhs were made to the firm which was not active and situated at the present address. The enquiry report further contemplates that the petitioner along with two other officers were found involved, therefore, they are held guilty, hence their services were forthwith terminated. The order of termination do not contain that any show cause notice was issued or an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur who while passing the order Annexure P-16 referred the same argument while admitting the appeal but while deciding the appeal by the order impugned Annexure P-17 the issue of granting opportunity has not been dealt, and in fact on the basis of the advice given by the Chief Executive Officer/Additional District Project Coordinator, referred that after hearing the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order of termination of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has filed their reply inter alia contending that the petitioner is a contractual employee and two other employees who were regularly appointed found guilty in the same preliminary enquiry, therefore, their services have been terminated by issuing notice and affording an opportunity to them. The petitioner being a contractual employee not required to issue show cause notice and opportunity of hearing has been afforded by the Appellate Authority however no prejudice has been caused to him, therefore, the order of termination do not warrant interference. It is further his contention that in a preliminary enquiry, the misappropriation of lakhs of rupees were found, therefore also he do not deserve an opportunity of hearing. At last, it is urged that his services were extended as per order dated 18-6-2016 for a period of one year and his tenure is going to be completed on 31-3-2017, therefore, he cannot be reinstated, as, it would amount to extension of the contract. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that this petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.

4. After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, in the present case judgment in the case of Rahul Tripathi v. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal, reported in 2001 (3) M.P.L.J. 616 : 2001 (3) MPHT 397 is relevant wherein this Court held as under:

“10. The present factual matrix is to be tested on the aforesaid enunciation of law. To find out whether the order of termination is a termination simpliciter or punitive in nature it is apposite to refer to the order contained Annexure P/18. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-

^^Jh jkgqy f=ikBh vkRet Jh chŒdsŒ f=ikBh dks fodkl [k.M cYnsox<+ esa [k.M L=ksr dsUnz leUo;d ds :i esa jktho xka/kh ÁkFkfed f'k{kk fe'ku ds varxZr ,d o"kZ dh lafonk fu;qfDr vkns'k Øekad MhŒihŒbZŒihŒ@fu;qfDr@95@22@6 fnukad 21-8-1995 }k