@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Challenge in this appeal under section 2(1) of the MP Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is made to an order-dated 16.8.2012, passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No. 11262/2003, whereby the petition filed by the appellant/petitioner was dismissed on the ground that he was a contract employee and not entitled for any benefit.
2. Appellant was appointed as a Salesman in the Excise Department on contract basis by an order-dated 10.1.1994. It is the case of the appellant that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and after some process of selection, he was appointed as a Salesman on contract basis. Even though the initial contract was for a fixed period, but the contract continued and the appellant/petitioner worked till 5.7.1996, when on the ground of certain allegations leveled against him, his service was terminated. Inter alia contending that the termination from service is on grounds of misconduct alleged against the appellant and before terminating the service no inquiry, opportunity of hearing or principles of natural justice have been followed, challenged was made to the termination before the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 693/1996, and after winding up of the Tribunal matter was transferred to this Court and was registered as Writ Petition No. 11262/2003. The writ petition was dismissed and, therefore, this appeal.
3. The writ Court found that the appellant/petitioner was a contract employee; his services were on contract basis; he was not a regular employee and, merely because by grace of the Department he was permitted to continue after the initial period of contract; no right accrues to him to seek the benefit of a permanent employee. It is found by the writ Court that he was appointed only for 89 days, but without any extension or approval by the State Government or the competent authority, he was permitted to continue and as the action is taken, there is no illegality in the matter.
4. Shri R.K. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that appellant�s service was terminated on allegations of misconduct and, therefore, even if the termination is of a contract employee, but the termination having been brought about on account of allegations of misconduct, complying with the requirement of natural justice was required and the same having not been done, the same is unsustainable. Learned counsel invites our attention to a judgment rendered in the case
5. On the contrary Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, invites our attention to the order of appointment � Annexure P/1 dated 10.1.1994 and argues that his was a contract appointment for 89 days; thereafter, there is no extension of this contract appointment and as the employee continued without any appropriate order of appointment, it is stated that his services were terminated as certain irregularities in the manner of his working was found. Learned Deputy Advocate General points out that when the shop of the appellant/petitioner, where he was working as a Salesman, was inspected on 26.6.1996, it was found that an unauthorized person namely � one Shri Dilip, was present in his shop and was selling country liquor in an unauthorized manner, which was not permissible. On physical verification, the stock of liquor in the shop was found to be less and it was also found that the cash collected in the shop was not deposited with the department concerned. It is stated that based on this, order simpliciter was issued vide Annexure P/2 to say that as certain irregularities have been found in the inspection of the shop on 26.6.1994, the contract appointment is being terminated.
6. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, points out that the termination of a contract employee on such unsatisfactory service is not a stigmatic order, it is not amenable to the requirement of the principles of natural justice and he submits that the termination is not founded on the misconduct, said to have been alleged, but it was only a motivating factor which compelled the department to take the decision. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the Supreme Court has clearly held that departmental inquiry is not needed in every case. In support of his contention, learned Deputy Advocate General invites our attention to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of
7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that the learned writ Court has held that the appellant was a contract employee; his appointment was only for 89 days and without there being any sanction or due approval of the competent authority, he has continued for some more time. It is found that this will give not give any vested right to continue on the post. That apart, if the order of termination � Annexure P/2 dated 5.7.1996 is seen, the order does not seems to be stigmatic in nature, it only says that when the shop was inspected on 26.6.1994, certain irregularities were found in the shop as a result, the contract appointment is being terminated.
8. From the aforesaid narration of facts, it is clear that the inspection of the shop and the irregularities found therein motivated the competent authority to bring to an end the contract of appointment. The termination is, therefore, based on the unsatisfactory nature of performance of the petitioner when the shop was inspected and as the petitioner was only a contract employee, if the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases relied upon by learned Deputy Advocate General, we see no error in the order passed warranting any further consideration.
9. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
