Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 14363
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Arun Dev Choudhury, J
GIYAS ALI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS – Respondent
WA/416/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P J Saikia, R S Mishra, M Nirola
For the Respondents: SC, Elem. Edu, SC, A S S A
In contractual employment, a distinction is drawn between 'motive' and 'foundation'. An order of release based solely on the expiry of a contract is innocuous and non-punitive, even if the employer was motivated by pending criminal allegations, provided those allegations do not form the foundation of the order.
Headnote:(A) Contractual Employment - Expiry of Tenure - No vested or enforceable right exists for a contractual employee to seek continuation or renewal of the contract once the tenure ends by efflux of time. (Para 12)
(B) Service Jurisprudence - Motive vs. Foundation - A clear distinction exists between 'motive' (background factors or inducing factors like pending allegations) and 'foundation' (the substantive basis of the action). An order is not punitive or stigmatic if the misconduct is merely the motive and not the foundation of the order. (Para 14-19)
(C) Judicial Review - Scope in Contractual Matters - Judicial review in contractual employment is limited to examining whether the action is vitiated by illegality, arbitrariness, malafides, or colourable exercise of power; courts cannot compel the renewal of a contract. (Para 13)
Issues: Whether the release of a contractual employee upon the expiry of their contract is punitive or stigmatic when a criminal case is pending against the employee.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of contractual appointment and subsequent release upon expiry of tenure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. challenge to the non-stigmatic nature of the release order. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. limited judicial review and lack of vested right in contractual employment. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. distinction between motive and foundation in service jurisprudence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. application of motive vs foundation to determine if an order is punitive. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. impermissibility of reinstatement and interpretation of service regulations. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. dismissal of appeal and independence of criminal proceedings. (Para 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT ORDER
( Arun Dev Choudhury, J )
1. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 06.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition being WP(C) No.3949/2023.
2. By the said writ petition, the petitioner assailed the order dated 19.06.2023, by which he was released from contractual service, on the ground that the contract entered into between the petitioner and the employer had expired on 30.11.2022.
3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that, pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2002 by the authorities of the Axom Sarba Siksha Abhiyan Mission, the appellant/petitioner was appointed to the post of Finance & Accounts Officer. The appointment was purely contractual and governed by the terms of the agreement executed by the parties. Initially, the agreement was for a period of 1 year, which was thereafter renewed from time to time, enabling the appellant/petitioner to continue in service. The last agreement between the appellant/petitioner and the authorities of Axom Sarba Siksha Abhiyan Mission was executed on 01.02.2022 and covered the period from 01.01.2022 to 30.11.2022.
4. It is not in dispute that, after 30.11.2022, no further agreement was executed, and the contractual tenure of service of the appellant/petitioner ended by efflux of time, though he continued to serve.
5. Subsequently, on an allegation of an excess payment being debited from the employer's account, allegedly involving the accountant of Axom Sarba Siksha Abhiyan Mission, Dibrugarh, and the appellant/petitioner, an FIR was lodged on 04.05.2023 and registered as Dibrugarh PS Case No.255/2023, under sections 406/409 IPC. The accountant was arrested and later released on bail. The appellant/petitioner was also arrested and was enlarged on bail by the Jurisdictional Magistrate under an order dated 12.05.2023.
6. On 05.05.2023, the appellant/petitioner was directed to submit his clarification regarding the missing RIDF files, to which he responded with a reply dated 22.05.2023. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 31.05.2023 was issued, which was also duly replied to by the appellant/petitioner.
7. Eventually, by order dated 19.06.2023, the appellant/petitioner was released from contractual engagement on the ground that his contract had expired on 30.11.2022. Aggrieved, the appellant/petitioner approached this court by filing WPC 3949/2023.
8. The learned single Judge, upon consideration of the pleadings and submissions, dismissed the written petition, holding that the release order was non-stigmatic and was referable solely to the expiry of the contractual tenure.
9. Assailing the said judgment, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has contended that though the impugned order is innocuous in form, it is in substance punitive, having regard to the pendency of the criminal case, issuance of notices, and allegations of misappropriation. It is urged that the order is a camouflage and is adopted to dispense with the appellant’s services without holding a departmental inquiry, in violation of principles of natural justice.
10. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention.
11. At the outset, it should be noted that the appellant/petitioner was a contractual emp
