IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP 5021 of 2010. Decided on November 24, 2010. Dev Raj Sharma …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & others ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner Sh. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A. G., and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner had been appointed as Veterinary Doctor, in the Department of Animal Husbandry of Himachal Pradesh, in the year 2003, on contract basis. Initially, the appointment was for one year. It was renewed year after year and latest renewal took place vide agreement, dated 11.1.2010, which was effective from 1.12.2009 and was to expire on 30.11.2010. On 21st June, 2010, petitioner, while working as Veterinary Doctor in Veterinary Hospital, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Darlaghat, was arrested in a corruption case. Trap was laid by Vigilance people and he was allegedly caught with the bribe money, demanded and accepted by him from the Incharge of a Self Help Group, which had purchased some cows, by raising loan of `3,00,000/- from State Bank of Patiala. Petitioner remained in detention for 4/5 days and was then released on bail. Respondent No. 1, i.e. State of H.P., in Animal Husbandry Department, then terminated the services of the petitioner, vide order dated 10.8.2010, copy Annexure P-15. Before that, petitioner was not allowed to resume his duty, after being released on bail. 3. Petitioner has challenged the order of termination of his services, Annexure P-15, as also the act of respondents, in not allowing him to join duties, by means of the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Respondents have filed reply, in which it is stated that termination of the petitioner has taken place, in accordance with terms of contract, executed on 11.1.2010, copy Annexure P-14. They have stated that termination has been ordered, because an FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and he had been taken into custody, on a serious charge of corruption. - 3 - 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as also learned Deputy Advocate General and gone through the record. 6. In accordance with the agreement, copy Annexure P-14, executed on 11.1.2010, petitioner’s appointment is liable to be terminated, in case his performance/ conduct is not found good, or if a regular incumbent is appointed/posted against the vacancy, for which he has been engaged on contract. In the present case, regular incumbent has not been appointed / posted against the vacancy, for which the petitioner has been appointed. Learned Deputy Advocate General says that his termination is on account of his performance/conduct, being not good. 7. Only a case has been registered against the petitioner. Of course, he had been arrested and remained in custody for 4/5 days, but the fact, whether he demanded and accepted bribe and committed offence of misconduct, punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) or not, is yet to be established. It will be established only during the course of trial. Respondents, without waiting for the outcome of trial and also without conducting any inquiry at their own level, to satisfy themselves, whether the alleged misconduct had been committed by the petitioner or not, - 4 - have terminated his services. That is not permissible under the law. 8. However, keeping in view the fact that a case of criminal misconduct, amounting to a serious offence, punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act, has been registered against the petitioner and he remained in custody for 4/5 days, in connection with the case, action of the respondents, in not allowing him to join duty, cannot be said to be illegal. Reason is that even a regular government servant, holding substantive post, is liable to be placed under suspension, in case he is arrested in a criminal case and remains in detention for more than 48 hours. 9. Petitioner is not a regular employee. He is not governed by CCS (CCA) Rules, which provide for suspension of regular employees. Therefore, no formal order of suspension can be passed against him, but at the same time, his position being worse than that of a permanent government servant, he cannot be allowed to resume duty, simply for the reason that he cannot be placed under suspension. 10. His order of termination, Annexure P-15 can, however, not be upheld, as it has been passed in haste, without waiting for a definite finding by the criminal Court or recording a finding, by holding departmental inquiry, that he is guilty of misconduct. - 5 - 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, while order Annexure P-15 is set aside, it is ordered that criminal case shall be instituted against the petitioner within one month from today, as I have been told that investigation is complete, and the Court of Special Judge, shall conclude the trial by 31st July, 2011 positively. In the meanwhile, it will be optional for the respondents, to allow or not to allow the petitioner to join duty. In case he is not allowed to join duty, he shall not be entitled to any salary or allowance. In case criminal Court gives a finding that the petitioner is not guilty of alleged misconduct, he shall be treated on par with other Veterinary Doctors, who were appointed alongwith him, in the year 2003 and whose contracts have been renewed, continuously thereafter. In case he is held guilty, respondents may terminate his services, by invoking condition No. 1, in the appointment letter, Annexure P-14. 12. Writ petition as also the pending applications stand disposed of. November 24, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.