Termination of a contractual employee for unsatisfactory performance, as provided by the terms of the service agreement, does not constitute a punitive action requiring a formal departmental enquiry or attract the protections under Article 311 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

PER SINDHU SHARMA-J

1. This Letters Patent Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “LPA”) has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 02.08.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1077/2007, titled “Manzoor Ahmad Bhat vs. Union of India & Ors.”, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed.

2. The case set up by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that he was appointed as a Laboratory Assistant under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) in terms of appointment order dated 04.10.2004. The term of his engagement was extended vide agreement dated 30.10.2005 for a period of 11 months, and thereafter again extended in the year 2006 through another agreement. Subsequently, he was served with a termination notice dated 21.05.2007 by respondent No. 3. The appellant submitted his reply, however, the same was not accepted, and respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order of termination dated 19.06.2007 without conducting any enquiry and allegedly in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. The appellant challenged the action of the respondents on the grounds that respondent No. 3 was not competent to issue the termination notice and that his services could not have been terminated without holding an enquiry, particularly when the order of termination was stigmatic in nature.

4. The respondents, on the other hand, contended before the learned Single Judge that the appellant was a contractual employee whose engagement was governed strictly by the terms of contract, initially for 11 months and subsequently, extended from time to time, the last agreement being executed on 06.09.2006. It was further contended that the termination notice was issued by respondent No. 3 on behalf of respondent No. 2 and that the final order of termination was passed by the competent authority. The respondents also submitted that the appellant was repeatedly warned for his unprofessional conduct and unsatisfactory performance through communications dated 07.04.2007, 27.04.2007, and 08.05.2007.

5. The learned Single Judge, upon perusal of the record, noted that an inspection conducted on 27.04.2007 revealed deficiencies in the functioning of the laboratory. It was further observed that the appellant had been issued multiple warnings regarding his conduct, attitude towards colleagues, and lack of diligence in discharging his duties. The reply submitted by the appellant to the show cause notice was also considered, wherein he, to an extent, admitted deficiencies but attributed them to other staff members.

6. On this basis, the learned Single Judge held that the appellant’s engagement was governed by contractual terms and, in terms of Clause (11) of the agreement, the respondents were empowered to terminate his services upon issuance of a show cause notice. Since such notice was issued and duly replied to, and considering the appellant’s continued unsatisfactory conduct despite repeated warnings, the termination was held to be justified and within the competence of the respondents.

7. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment primarily on the ground that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the settled legal position that even a contractual employee cannot be terminated in a manner that is stigmatic or founded on allegations of misconduct without holding a proper enquiry and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supr