THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.8728 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as a Civil Assistant Surgeon on contract basis by the District Coordinator of Hospital Services on 28.05.2009 for a period of 11 months and was posted at Community Health Center, Rampachodavaram. On an allegation that he demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for conducting post mortem of an individual, who died in an accident on 28.02.2010, an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram. On the basis of a report, dated 01.03.2010 submitted by him, the 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 03.03.2010 terminating the services of the petitioner. The Project Officer, ITDA, 4th respondent herein addressed a letter dated 15.03.2010 to the Medical Council of A.P., 5th respondent herein to impose punishment upon the petitioner in the form of cancellation of the M.B.B.S degree. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said two proceedings. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appointment of the petitioner, though on contract basis as Civil Assistant Surgeon, was for a period of 11 months. He was terminated before expiry of that period on the basis of certain allegations. The order, dated 03.03.2010, specifically makes a mention to the allegations as well as the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Unless the petitioner was put on notice and his explanation was taken into account, the allegations ought not to have been taken as true. It is no doubt true that the appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis for 11 months. However, the termination of the services before expiry of that period by attaching stigma would certainly affect the civil rights of the petitioner. Though the respondents cannot be directed to reinstate the petitioner, they can be required to conduct enquiry, so that the truth or otherwise of the allegation comes out. The letter, dated 15.03.2010 also suffers from one infirmity viz., violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not put on notice and the 4th respondent proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner resorted to an act of misconduct. The 5th respondent cannot act upon such letters. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the order dated 03.03.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside and it is left open to the 3rd respondent to conduct enquiry into the allegation made against the petitioner and conclude the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the allegation against the petitioner is not proved, he shall be entitled to continue in service for the left over period under the contract. He shall not be entitled to be reinstated, or for subsistence allowance, till completion of the proceedings. The letter, dated 15.03.2010 addressed by the 4th respondent is also set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 20.09.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.8728 of 2010 Date: 20.09.2010 JSU