Kornu Srinivasarao, vs Andhra Pradesh State Beverages ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4637 AP

       HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.No.24643 of 2023

                           PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.   DATE                                  ORDER                                  OFFICE
No.                                                                                 NOTE

 5. 03.10.2023   NV,J
                         The petitioner herein engaged as Shop
                 Salesman on contract / outsourcing basis at
                 Respondent No.2 Corporation vide proceedings

dated 12.01.2021, for a period of one year The said appointment was issued by Respondent No.2 to the petitioner for a period of one year from the date of joining or up to 30.09.2021, whichever is earlier.

Even in the absence of renewal of the written agreement, the services of the petitioner had been continued till 18.08.2023. While so, Respondent No.2 issued an order vide proceedings dated 18.08.2023, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that the petitioner had committed misconduct while discharging his services as Shop Salesman.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject termination order dated 18.08.2023 was issued without observing principles of natural justice and without following due procedure as contemplated under the principles of administrative law jurisprudence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nina Lath Gupta Vs. Union of India1, wherein it is held that even a contract employee / part time employee cannot be removed by way of Stigmatic proceedings without providing and without conducting a proper enquiry. Hence the present impugned termination order dated 18.08.2023 with stigma against the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry is liable to be suspended.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that the services of the petitioner is on contract basis for a period of one year only. He further submits that as per the Clause (4) of the appointment order dated 12.01.2021, specifically stated that the services of the petitioner can be terminated at any point of time, without any notice, if any short comings noticed or any irregularities are found at the retail outlet. In view of the said condition, the services of the petitioner were terminated due to misappropriation of such proceeds at shop. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.08.2023 does not warrants for interference of this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2.

2023 SCC Online Del 2518 : (2023) 3 LLJ 383

In view of the settled principle of law and also due to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nina Lath Gupta Vs. Union of India, even the services of the contract employee or temporary employee cannot be removed without observing principles of natural justice. If the services of the contract employee terminated with a stigma without there being any enquiry, cannot be sustainable against the law.

Hence, there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, there shall be an interim suspension of the proceedings vide Lr.No.APSBCL/SKLM/TR/2023- 24/06, dated 18.08.2023, issued by Respondent No.2, pending disposal of the writ petition.

For filing counter-affidavit by the Respondents, post the matter after three weeks.

________ NV, J Knr