1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 12.01.2011 (Annexure-P/3), whereby the
petitioner''s services were terminated without issuing any notice and without conducting any inquiry.
2. In short, the admitted facts between the parties are that by order dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure-P/1) the petitioner was appointed on
contract/temporary basis for five years. The appointment of the petitioner was made subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned in the
appointment order and the contract entered into between the parties (Annexure-R/2) dated 18.10.2008.
3. Ms. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order dated 12.01.2011, shows that certain serious allegations
were made against the petitioner. On the strength of these allegations, the petitioner was terminated. The said order is stigmatic in nature. For the
same set of allegations, petitioner was subjected to a criminal case. The Competent Court in Criminal Case No.875/2011, by its judgment dated
19.12.2014, acquitted the petitioner. Since, the petitioner stood acquitted on the same set of allegations, there was no justification in terminating
the petitioner. She placed reliance on the document dated 23.07.2011 (Annexure-P/6) filed with I.A. No.13396/2011. By taking this Court to the
statement of complainant, it is submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated.
4. Ms. Gatuam, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on 2000 (2) SLR 772 [Chandra Prakesh Shahi vs. State of U.P. & others],
2001 (3) MPLJ 616 [Rahul Tripathi vs. R.G.S. Mission], 2013 (2) MPHT 412 [Prem Chand Yadav & other vs. The MP Poorva Kshetra Vidyut
Vitaran Company, Ltd.] and order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2511/2015 [Ashok Kumar Dwivedi vs. State of M.P. & others] dated
03.03.2015,2 contented that principles of natural justice are required to be followed even in the cases of termination of the contractual employee.
In the present case, without following the principles of natural justice, the petitioner was terminated and hence said order may be set aside.
5. The prayed is opposed by Ms. Sonali Shrivastava, learned P.L., by contending that a complaint containing very serious allegations was received
by Senior Officers at the level of IAS, who conducted the inquiry and after medical examination of complaint, found that the petitioner is guilty of
the charge. Hence, as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order and the contract entered into between the parties (Annexure-R/5) the
petitioner''s services were terminated. She submitted that the petitioner was exonerated by the trial Court by giving her benefit of doubt. Her
acquittal is not on merits. In addition, it is submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the contract, no fault can be found in the action of the
respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner. It is further submitted that by this time, the contractual period for which the petitioner was
appointed (five years) is already been over and therefore the question of reinstatement does not arise. She further submitted that for the contractual
employee, the remedy is else where.
6. No other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. I have heard the parties at length and pursued the record.
8. The petitioner was appointed on contract/temporary basis by order dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure-P/1) for a period of five years. The said
period of five years is already over by now. Thus, no relief of reinstatement can be granted in this petition. The core issue is : whether this petition is
tenable and whether any relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case
9. The allegation against the petitioner was that she tortured a girl student of Class III and burnt her body parts by a hot iron piece. Various body
parts of the said student were burnt including her private parts. Two senior officers conducted the inquiry which was followed by medical
examination of the said girl student. The report of the said officers was against the petitioner. However, in the criminal case, the petitioner was
acquitted because the witness turned hostile against her. In the meantime, the term/contract period of the petitioner is over.
10. The order passed in Criminal Case No.875/2011 dated 09.12.2014 shows that the petitioner is acquitted by giving her benefit of doubt.
11. The question whether any relief is due to a contractual employee in writ jurisdiction has been dealt with by this Court in W.P. No.15502/2016
(Shivrati Barmaiya Vs. State of M.P. and others). This Court opined as under: -6. This is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner is
not holding any substantive or civil post in the Government department. She was admittedly a contractual employee. In Rahul Tripathi and Ramraj
Maran(Supra), this Court interfered with the termination order on the ground that such orders were stigmatic in nature and the same could not have
been passed without following the principles of natural justice. However, later on, the Apex Court delivered the judgment reported in 2008 (8)
SCC 92 (State Bank of India vs. S.N. Goyal) wherein the Apex Court opined that remedy for such employee is to file suit for damages. There are
three exceptions to this rule namely (i) where a civil servant is removed from service in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India (or any law made under Article 309); (ii) where a workman having the protection of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is
wrongly terminated from service; and (iii) where an employee of a statutory body is terminated from service in breach or violation of any
mandatory provision of a statute or statutory rules. It was further held that to decide the nature of relief to be given, it is necessary to examine
whether the employment is governed by contract or by a statute or by statutory rules. In 2013 (5) SCC 470 (Rajasthan State Industrial
Development and Investment Corporation and another vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and another), the Apex Court
opined that dispute relating to contract cannot be agitated nor terms of the contract can be enforced through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution. Thus, the writ court cannot be a forum to seek any relief based on terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement by the
parties. See also (1989) 2 SCC 116 (Bareilly Development Authority vs. Ajai Pal Singh) and (1996) 6 SCC 22 (State of U.P. vs. Bridge & Roof
Co. (India) Ltd.). In 2015 (7) SCC 728 (Joshi Technologies International Vs. Union of India and others), the Apex Court after considering
various judgments held as under: -However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is
plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a
discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See
Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks) and this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be
exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and
unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it
necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of
discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition
even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies
with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under certain circumstances, ""normally"", the
Court would not exercise such a discretion.... From para 69 onwards of the said judgment, the Court has laid down the parameters for examining
the issues relating to contractual matters. It was further held that the court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law
character attached to it. The case of termination of a contractual employee may be his personal grievance but it does not involve any public law
element in it. For this reason also, this petition cannot be entertained. 7. In the present case, the petitioner''s services are not governed by any
Statutory Rules. Thus, as per the judgment of S.N. Goyal (Supra), in cases of contractual appointment, the remedy of employee is only to seek
damages and not specific performance. The Court will neither declare such termination as nullity nor declare that contract of employment subsists.
Consequential relief or reinstatement cannot also be granted. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction in the present
case. The petitioner can seek such relief before appropriate forum. In the said forum, petitioner can place reliance on the judgment of Rahul
Tripathi and Ramraj Maran(Supra). With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of. No cost....
12. In the light of the order passed in Shivrati Barmaiya (supra), I am of the view that the petitioner is not holding any substantive or civil post in the
department. She was admittedly a contractual employee whose term is already over. In Shivratri Barmaiya (supra), this Court opined that the
Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it. It is further held that in cases where services are
not governed by any statutory rules, the remedy for employee is to seek damages and not specific performance. The Court should not declare such
termination as nullity nor declare that contract of employment subsists. No relief of reinstatement can be granted.
13. Accordingly, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present case. The dispute
relating to termination of petitioner does not have any public law element in it. The petitioner can seek relief of damages etc. before appropriate
forum. In the said forum, the petitioner can place reliance on the judgment of Rahul Tripathi and other judgments cited before this Court.
14. With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of. No cost.