HARPAL SINGH BHADORIA Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges the order dated 7.11.2012, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated without affording him any opportunity.

(2.) ADMITTED facts between the parties are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Engineer on contract basis by order dated 11 -13/10/2006 (Annexure P -2). The petitioner's services were terminated by order dated 7.11.2012 (Annexure (P -1). The reason for termination is that a case is registered against the petitioner by Lokayukt Organization which is sufficient reason to terminate the services of the petitioner.

(3.) SHRI D.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on clause 15 of the contract to submit that his services could not have been terminated without following the procedure laid down in the said clause, whereas Shri B.Raj Pandey relied on Clause 10 and Clause 16 of the same contract to show that services of a contractual employee can be terminated without assigning any reason and without giving any notice.