Anup Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 140 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for quashing of the Order of termination dated 20.10.2003 and for issuance of a direction to the Respondent to carry out a proper inquiry in respect of the complaint received against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was engaged as a Tuberculosis Health Visitor (TBHV) by the State Tuberculosis Control Society with effect from 11.7.2000 for a period of six months. The relevant Office Order is to the following effect - ''Consequent upon his accepting the offer of being DOT Provider on contractual basis for a period of six months with fixed consolidated remuneration of Rs. 5000/- per month, Mr. Anup Singh should report for duties as contractual DOT Provider ......''. A formal contract was duly executed between the parties, clause 9 whereof stipulates that - ''This contract can be terminated by either side with one month's notice or in lieu of it by paying one month's remuneration by the STCS or by surrendering one month's salary by the T.B.H.V.'' The contract was renewed on 11.1.2003 and on 11.7.2003, on similar terms. The contractual services of the Petitioner would, therefore, have to come to an end on 11.1.2004, in its normal course. In August, 2003 a complaint was received against the Petitioner to the effect that he had demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- for making an Identity Card for a patient. This complaint was forwarded through the Central Bureau of Investigation to the Respondent Society. Admittedly, a Show Cause Notice was not issued to the Petitioner and his services were terminated on 20.10.2003. This Writ Petition was filed on 17.11.2003. On 19.11.2003 it had been ordered that the services of the Petitioner should not be discontinued till the next date of hearing, which was 17.12.2003. These interim Orders have been continued. On 26.11.2004 it had been made clear that no further adjournment would be granted to the Petitioner. It should be noted that although the contractual term of employment would have expired on 11.1.2004, the Petitioner has continued in service for one further year because of the pendency of this Writ Petition and the extension of the interim Orders passed on various dates.

2. The Notice dated 20.10.2003 reads as follows:

The services of Anoop Singh TBHV hired on contract are no longer required. Therefore as per the terms and conditions of the contract he is served one month Notice for termination of the contract with immediate effect.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. and Ors. v. Lt. Col. A.K. Dogra (Retd.), in which the tenure of contractual appointment was for a period of two years. However, before the completion of the full term the services were terminated without assigning any reason. The Court held the termination to be illegal and awarded salary for the remainder of the contractual service. Keeping the decisions of the Apex Court in perspective the ratio of this judgment appears to be that normally the tenure of even a contractual employment should not be prematurely ended without good reason, even if a clause exists permitting the termination by notice. This decision has been considered by S.K. Mahajan, J. in A.N. Gupta v. Public Enterprises Selection Board (Pesb) and Ors., 2003 V AD (Delhi) 364 along with a catena of celebrated judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has castigated arbitrary and whimsical termination of an employee's services, especially where the termination was without assigning any reason. The decisions in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr v. Brojonath Ganguli, , Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, , Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and Ors., , H.F. Snagati v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and Ors., , M/s. Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. and Ors. v. Lt. Col. A.K Dogra (Retd.), (1993) II LLJ 45, J.S. Garg v. UOI, , M. Gopalkrishnaiah v. UOI, , O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., , Patna v. Pandey Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha and others, , R.S. Tokas v. UOI, 10(2002) DLT 746, Reserve Bank of India and Anr v. S. Jayarajan, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 584, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Kishan, JT 1999 (6) SC 399, State of U.P. v. Ram Kishan and another, JT (1999) 6 SC 291, West Bengal State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh and others, and Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, 1993(I) LLJ 626 were discussed by the learned Single Judge. The conclusion arrived at by him was that where the services of arobationer were brought to an end in a non-punitive manner, without casting any stigma, and based on the appraisal of his work, such a decision should not be interfered with by the Court.

4. The gravamen of the present Petition is that the services ought not to have terminated before the expiry of a contractual period without holding an enquiry. There is no prayer for regularisation or permanent absorption of the Petitioner. Admittedly, a Report had been forwarded by the C.B.I. against the Petitioner. It is true that an Inquiry was not held on this issue and the Petitioner was removed from services on the basis of the contract of employment. No stigma has been cast on him. By virtue of the interim Orders passed by this Court he has continued to serve for one year after the normal expiry of his contract of service. The decision to terminate his services cannot be seen as whimsical or arbitrary, since a Report had been received by the Respondent from the C.B.I. Even if the IRCON's case (supra) is to be followed, the Petitioner would have been, at the highest, entitled to claim his salary for the unexpired contractual period. As on date, therefore, he has no grievance whatsoever.

5. The Petition is without merit and is dismissed.