C.W.P. No.8012 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8012 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 25, 2009 Jai Parkash Bhatnagar .....PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Vikram Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who was working on contract basis, has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 15.5.2009 passed by respondent No.2, whereby his services have been terminated with immediate effect and he has been relieved from the post vide order dated 18.5.2009. In the present case, on 24.12.2003 the petitioner was appointed to the post of Head Clerk up to 31.12.2003 in the Haryana Prathmik Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad (a Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860) under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Project on contractual basis at a consolidated salary of Rs.5700/- per month. The services of the petitioner were extended from time to time. As per the conditions of appointment, the contract of appointment can be terminated by the appointing authority by giving a notice of one month without assigning any reason or by giving one month's contractual pay in lieu of the notice period. In this case, for committing fraud, forgery and embezzlement of funds by the employees of the Society, FIR No. 3(A) dated 29.9.2008 C.W.P. No.8012 of 2009 -2- under Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered by the CBI in which the petitioner was also arrayed as an accused. In the said FIR, the challan was filed and the petitioner has been charge-sheeted on 31.12.2008 along with other two accused. A copy of the charge-sheet has been annexed with the petition in which serious allegations of forging of the bills and misappropriation of the funds have been levelled against the petitioner. Due to the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him under the terms and conditions of his appointment letter. After considering his reply, the services of the petitioner have been terminated by the impugned order. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. In my opinion, the petitioner was a contract employee and the appointing authority while giving one month's notice to the petitioner, has rightly terminated the services of the petitioner in terms of the contract of appointment due to the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case in which serious charges have been levelled against him. It is pertinent to mention that the services of an employee, who has been appointed on contract basis, can be terminated in terms of the conditions of his contractual appointment. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. May 25, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE