Contractual employees must be afforded procedural fairness, including an opportunity for a hearing, before termination, especially when the termination is stigmatic.

ORDER

Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice

Appellants have prayed for following relief in the present writ appeal:-

"(i) Quash the judgment dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure- A/l) passed in W.P. No. 9544 of 2022 (Vineet Kumar Tripathi V The MP. Road Development Corporation &ors.) passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge.

(ii) Grant any other relief as may be deemed fit."

2. The present appeal has been filed on the ground that the writ Court did not consider the material fact that the law with regard to services of the contractual employee is settled that a contractual employee does not does not have any right to claim an opportunity of hearing unless the application is made in terms of relevant rules and after proper competition among qualified persons. The MPRDC Rules, 2016 and the agreement even though do not provide for such a specific condition. However, the agreement categorically states that the services of the writ petitioner can be terminated without assigning any reason and the said fact has not been considered by the writ Court.

3. To butress his submission, learned counsel for appellant has relied upon the cases of (2000) 7 SCC 529 ( Aligarh Muslim University and others vs. Mansoor Ali Khan ) and (2002) 1 SCC 520 ( Pavnendra Narayan Verma Vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences and another ).

4. The writ petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant Grade-III on contract basis pursuant to his selection in the appellant-department vide order dated 25.07.2011. Thereafter, an agreement was executed between the writ petitioner and the Corporation containing the terms and conditions of the appointment vide Annexure P/2 with writ petition. The writ petitioner submitted his joining and continued in service and his contract appointment was last renewed up to December, 2022, but vide impugned order dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure-P/6 with writ petition), the services of the writ petitioner have been terminated for the reason that he was trapped by Lokayukt Establishment while he was taking bribe and in consequence to the same, a criminal case is pending before the competent Court of law.

5. The case of the respondent herein was that merely because a criminal case is pending against the writ petitioner, his services though he is a contractual employee, cannot be terminated in the manner in which it has been terminated. The conditions of service, which govern the writ petitioner, are mentioned in the agreement itself. Clause-13 of the said conditions provides that for taking any such action, the appellants are required to follow the procedure as has been prescribed under the MPRDC Rules i.e. Madhya Pradesh Sadak Vikas Nigam (Sewa Bharti Tatha Sharten) Niyam , 2016 and as per Rule 11 of the said Rules, for any such conduct or disciplinary action, Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1965 and Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules , 1966 shall be applicable. The services of the writ petitioner cannot be terminated without conducting an enquiry and giving opportunity of hearing, especially under the circumstance when the impugned order itself is a stigmatic order.

6. We have perused the impugned order and we note that learned writ Court observed that the writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Assistant Grade III vide order dated 25.07.2011 on contractual basis in pursuance to an advertisement issued for recruitment and in pursuance to the said appointment order, the writ petitioner submitted his joining on 06.09.2011 (Annexure P/3 with writ petition) and he was given posting in the Head Office of the Corporation at Bhopal and thereafter he was transferred to the Office of Divisional Manager, Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation, Divisional Office, Rewa by order dated 10.02.2012 (Annexure P/4). Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure P/6), the services of the writ petitioner have been terminated mentioning therein that on 12.04.2022 when a raid was