When an employer voluntarily incorporates statutory service rules into a contractual engagement, they are bound by the full rigour of those rules, including the requirement for a formal departmental inquiry before imposing punitive termination for misconduct.

ORDER

07.01.2026

(A.D.Choudhury, J).

1. We have heard Mr. J. Handique, learned State Counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By this intra-court appeal, a challenge has been made against the judgment and order dated 10.09.2024, passed in WP(C) No. 3/2019, wherein the learned Single Judge has interfered with the order of termination of service of the respondent dated 17.11.2018, impugned in the said writ petition. The learned Single Judge further directed the appellants to reinstate the respondent within two weeks from the date of passing of the judgment with a liberty to the appellants to proceed against the writ petitioner afresh in accordance with law, or to take a fresh decision on the renewal of his contract, if so advised.

3. The fact, in a nutshell, is that the respondent/writ petitioner, a Project Officer (Disaster Management) working on a fixed-term contractual basis under the Assam State Disaster Management Authority (ASDMA) since December 2000, was posted at HailakandiDDMA. In August 2018, his father fell seriously ill. The respondent verbally informed his superiors and left for home, intending to submit a formal leave application later. He remained absent from 21st August 2018. The appellants/authorities treated the same as unauthorised absence. A show-cause notice was issued on 04.09.2018, asking as to why his contract should not be terminated for gross indiscipline. His reply was found unsatisfactory, and his contract was terminated with effect from 11.11.2018 under the order impugned in the writ petition dated 17.11.2018.

4. The respondent challenged the termination order dated 17.11.2018 before the learned Single Judge by filing the writ petition being WP(C) No. 3/2019, claiming that although he was working on a contractual basis, his engagement letter specifically made him subject to the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1964). It was further contended that termination, being a major penalty under Rules, 1964, could only be imposed in terms of Rule 9 by initiating a departmental inquiry, which was never conducted.

5. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge under its order dated 10.09.2024, allowed the aforesaid writ petition by holding that, since the contract itself incorporated a clause making the Rules, 1964, applicable, the authorities were bound to follow the procedure for imposing a major penalty before terminating him from service. Simple termination by treating it as an end-of-contract was not permissible in the given facts of the case. Accordingly, the direction as recordedhereinabove was issued.

6. The State/ASDMA has now filed this writ appeal against the judgment impugned, basically arguing that the employee was purely engaged on a contractual basis and that the Rules, 1964, do not apply in full rigour to contractual employees, and therefore, the termination was perfectly valid under the terms of the contract and settled proposition of law in this regard.

7. Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned Single Judge has completely ignored the contractual nature of the employment. Even if the Service Rules are made applicable in the contract, the full rigour of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1964, is not applicable to contractual employees.

8. Mr. Handique, learned counsel, further submits that the renewal of the contract every year was discretionary