HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20531 of 2009 Date: 22.03.2010 Between: Bandela Anand. … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Women Development and Welfare Department & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20531 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 28th August 2009, passed by the 1st respondent-Commissioner in Proceedings No.4796/Vig.- 1/2009, by which, the services of petitioner as Child Development Project Officer, are terminated. 2. The petitioner is appointed as Child Development Project Officer on contract basis for a period of one year and the term expires by 31st of March 2010. The appointment of petitioner is governed by the terms and conditions of employment, entered into between the petitioner and the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of termination issued against him, is contrary to the said terms and conditions of employment. It is submitted that though the impugned order is passed terminating the services by making serious allegations, but no inquiry is conducted into the said allegations, in accordance with the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1964, as per Clause 10 of the terms and conditions of employment. 3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents. It is stated in the counter that as the petitioner has misbehaved with some Anganwadi workers, based on the complaints by such workers, the services of petitioner were terminated. It is stated that as much as the impugned orders are passed after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the procedure as contemplated under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, is not followed. 4. By the impugned order, the services of petitioner are terminated. As per the terms and conditions of employment, though there is power to terminate the services of petitioner without assigning any reasons by giving one month notice or by giving one month salary thereto, but the respondents have not invoked such power, and the impugned order of termination is passed, basing on certain allegations mentioned therein, in which event, it cannot be said that the respondents have invoked the power under Condition Nos.3 and 4 of the terms and conditions of employment. Under Condition No.10, it is categorically stated that the disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated as per the procedure contemplated under the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. As much as the termination is a major punishment, as per the said Rules, unless a regular departmental inquiry is conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed, the order of termination cannot be passed. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside. But, at the same time, it is clarified that the appointment of petitioner is only on contract basis for a period of one year, which expires by 31st of March 2010. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to continue in service beyond 31st of March 2010. So far as continuation of services of petitioner is concerned, it is for the department to consider the said aspect on its own merit, but no direction can be given to continue the petitioner in service beyond the contract period. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd March 2010 ajr