BISHWAJIT PRASAD AZAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challengin G the order dated 15.2.2012 by which contract appointment of the petitioner is terminated (Annexure P/4), petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as a Sub Engineer on contract basis after due selection vide order Annexure P/1 dated 6.11.2006. As per the terms and conditions of appointment Clause 15 of the appointment order contemplates that if service of the petitioner which is on contract basis is to be terminated on allegations which constitute misconduct or which are serious in nature, the same can be done only after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that by the impugned order which is stigmatic in nature the contract is terminated on allegations which amounts to misconduct and as the proper enquiry or opportunity of hearing is not granted, the same is unsustainable.

(3.) Respondent S have refuted the aforesaid and it is stated that as petitioner was only a contract employee and as the contract appointment is terminated in accordance to the terms and conditions of appointment, there is no illegality in the matter. That apart, it is stated by the respondents that even before terminating the services of the petitioner as a show cause notice is issued, there is no illegality and therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is baseless. Finally, it was argued that under the scheme in which petitioner is appointed, a provision for appeal is contemplated as is evident from Annexure R/1 and as the appeal is maintainable, petition directly before this Court, is not proper. Accordingly, on the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the State Shri Rajesh Tiwari prays for dismissal of the writ petition.