IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12690 of 2009 SATYA NARAYAN BAITHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr Pathak Dhananjay Kumar,Advocate For Bihar Education Project Council : Mr P.K.Shahi, Advocate General with Mr Girish Kumar For the State : Mr Anshuman Singh,AC to AAG 3 ------- 2. 13.10.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Bihar Education Project Council. The petitioner has been appointed on 2.1.2007 under the aforesaid project for a period of three years or the duration of the project whichever be earlier. The appointment was on contractual basis. The letter of appointment explicitly stated that his services shall be governed by the service regulation framed for the purpose of engagement in the Project. Clause (4) of the letter of appointment states that during the period of contract the services could be terminated by one month’ s advance notice or pay in lieu thereof. Clause (5) of the letter of appointment further states that the conditions of service of the petitioner shall be governed by the regulation framed as it may be amended from time to time. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Regulation 52(b) provides for major penalties including removal or dismissal from service. Regulation 54 provides the procedure for imposition of such major punishment and which inter alia deals with holding of an enquiry with due opportunity to make representation against the penalty in the light of the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer, furnishing of the enquiry report etc. In 2 other words, all the trapping and requirement of a regular departmental proceeding are to be followed. An Appeal lies against the same under Regulation 56. In contravention of the aforesaid procedure, after issuance of a show cause notice dated 17.6.2009 levelling allegations against the petitioner, and consideration of the cause shown by the petitioner the impugned order of termination dated 23.7.2009 has been passed. The order of punishment being contrary to the regulation providing for holding of regular departmental proceeding is not sustainable in law. Learned Advocate General appearing for the Council contended that since the appointment was contractual in nature, only the rudimentary requirement of compliance of the principles of natural justice was the defence available to the petitioner. This has been complied with when the impugned order has been passed after consideration of the cause shown. Being a contractual appointment, this Court may not interfere in view of dissatisfaction of the appointing authority. This Court finds it difficult to uphold the contention on behalf of the Council in view of its own specific case made out in the letter of appointment that the petitioner was to be governed by the service regulation which required holding of a regular departmental enquiry if during the period of contract the Council opted not to act in terms of the letter of appointment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds it difficult to uphold the order of termination in its present form in view of non compliance with Regulation 54. 3 The impugned order dated 23.7.2009 is accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. Learned advocate General submits that the issues of reinstatement and back wages be left for consideration by the authorities. This Court is not persuaded to uphold the aforesaid submission. Had there been a compliance with the procedure prescribed under Regulation 54 by holding of a departmental enquiry and this Court may have found procedural irregularities only in the departmental proceeding, perhaps this Court may have been persuaded to uphold the contention of the learned Advocate General. But, where no enquiry whatsoever has been held in accordance with the regulation, and the order is patently in teeth of the regulation, to direct that reinstatement and back wages shall be left at the discretion of the employer shall not be rendering justice by this Court. This shall be without prejudice to the rights of the respondents under the letter of appointment/regulation, as the case may be. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)