IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9987 of 2009(S) ------------------------- OA.224/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE STATION COMMANDER, STATION HEAD QUARTERS, PANGODE, THIRUMALA.P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 3. STATION STAFF OFFICER, STATION HEAD QUARTERS, PANGODE, THIRUMALA.P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDEN/APPLICANT): --------------- D. RAJU, EX-SUBEDAR(HON.SUBEDAR MAJOR), GROCERY IN CHARGE (TERMINATED FROM SERVICE), STATION CANTEEN, TRIVANDRUM,EXTENSION COUNTER, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT 'KAILASAM' ROYAL NAGAR-85, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 9987 of 2009 S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A. No. 224 of 2008 are the writ petitioners. The respondent herein was the applicant. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following. The applicant is an Ex-serviceman. He was engaged by the writ petitioners on contract basis as Grocery-in-charge of Station Canteen Trivandrum Extension Counter, Kollam. He joined the said post on 1.9.2006. While working in that post, he was terminated by Annexure A3 order dated 5.2.2008, with effect from 6.2.2008. The reason was that, he was arrested by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kundara in a crime involving offences punishable under Sections 342, 294B and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the said arrest, invoking paragraph 10 of the contract of agreement entered into between the applicant and the W.P.(C).No. 9987 of 2009 2 writ petitioners, he was terminated from service. Challenging the said order, the Original Application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 3. According to the applicant, as per paragraph 10 of the agreement, under which he was engaged, he was entitled to show cause before being terminated for any of the grounds mentioned in that paragraph. 4. The writ petitioners resisted the application contending that the said paragraph provides for one month's notice or payment of one month's remuneration as compensation in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination is legal and valid. But the Tribunal took the view that the applicant should have been given an opportunity of being heard before he was terminated and the Original Application was allowed. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3, this writ petition is filed. 5. The only point to be decided in this writ petition, is the interpretation of paragraph 10 of Annexure A1, produced along with Ext.P1 Original Application. Paragraph 10 reads as follows: W.P.(C).No. 9987 of 2009 3 “10. The station Commander shall have the right to terminate this agreement by giving one month's notice to the Engaged Person or one month's remuneration as compensation in lieu thereof without prejudice to the generality of the right of termination, (which) may be on any of the following grounds for which an opportunity to show cause will be afforded to him/her:- a) Job related incompetence or misconduct or an act of moral turpitude. b) Unsatisfactory performance of duty. c) Arrest or conviction by a court of law for any offence. d) Any act prejudicial to security or interest of the organisation (Ex-servicemen Extension Counter Canteen). e) Absence of leave beyond 30 days. f) Prolonged or habitual absence from duty without prior permission of the competent authority including prolonged absence due to medical illness. g) Inadequate work. h) Breach/violation of any provision of this agreement by the Engaged Persons. i) Any other ground warranting his/her removal from the contractual agreement.” W.P.(C).No. 9987 of 2009 4 6. Admittedly, the applicant has been terminated under Ground (c). A reading of the above rule would show that a contract employee can be terminated after giving one month's notice or one month's remuneration as compensation in lieu thereof. He can also be terminated on grounds (a) to (h) enumerated therein. In such case, he should be given an opportunity of being heard. 7. We notice that this is a case, where the applicant was entitled to get notice under the above clause. Admittedly, termination was ordered without notice. Therefore, we find nothing wrong in the order of the Tribunal. 8. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm