ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent authorities in issuing impugned proceedings dated 27.07.2021, penalty of stoppage of renewal of contract which amounts to termination by way of penalty and as disciplinary measure and declaring the said proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and outside the Disciplinary Rules as per Field Assistants Human Resource Policy (FAHRP) formulated by the respondent authorities and further violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same …”

This Court has heard Smt. B.Geeta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, Smt. B.V.Aparna Lakshmi, appearing for the contesting respondents.

Smt. B.Geeta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that termination of the petitioner’s services by the impugned order is a wholly contrary to the law of the rules of natural justice and also the Field Assistants Human Resource Policy (for short „the Policy‟). Learned counsel points out that there is a stipulated procedure which prescribes specific time limits, opportunity for evidence, hearing etc.,. She points out that penalty has been imposed in this case without following the stipulated procedure itself. It is also stated that there is absolute non-application of mind before the impugned order is passed. According to the learned counsel, the order states that the petitioner did not even get a written reply to the allegations made, but by relying upon the list of documents referred to, the learned counsel points out that the explanation given by the petitioner is mentioned in the list of documents. Apart from that, she also submits that once a stipulated procedure is prescribed for holding and concluding a disciplinary proceeding, the failure to follow the same vitiates the entire matter. She points out that a proper charge memo was not given nor was a proper enquiry was held. It is also categorically asserted that the evidence that is collected from the complainant is also not disclosed or given to the petitioner. Petitioner did not have an opportunity to actually and effectively fight the case. Therefore, learned counsel argues that there is a failure of the rules of natural justice, failure to follow the Policy. It is argued that the impugned order which is passed carries a stigma and therefore a detailed enquiry should have been held according to her. She submits that as the entire action is vitiated, the petitioner had no option but to file the writ petition rather than pursuing her other alternative remedies under the Policy mentioned above. Since there is a total failure of the rules of natural justice, learned counsel argues that a writ is maintainable and the petitioner is entitled to an order.

Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, argues that the writ is not maintainable. He also argues that the petitioner appeared on 19.07.2021 for the personal hearing and filed his written reply. He also points out that irregularities were noticed and that therefore based upon the evidence, the proceedings were concluded. He also argues that the petitioner who entered into a contract cannot file or maintain the writ since it is a contract which is subject to extension; and the petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim to continue any employment. He points out that the contract has to be renewed on examination of the performance of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner cannot seek a renewal of employment. Lastly, he submits that as per the Policy, an Appeal lies to the Office of the District Collector and that the writ is therefore not maintainable.

Smt. Aparna Lakshmi, appealing to the respondent No.4 adopts the arguments of Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy.

This Court after hearing both the counsel notices that it is a fact that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis. The appoint