[2025:RJ-JP:14854] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9082/2018 Lekhraj Sharma Son Of Shri Ramji Lal Sharma, Resident Of Nirmal Gochar, Near R.t.o. Office, Jhalawar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary Cum Narega, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. District Project Coordinator And District Collector, Jhalawar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naman Yadav for Mr. Aniroodh Mathur Mr. Krishnaveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Bharati, Dy. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 22.08.2017 passed by the respondents by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated from the post of Junior Technical Assistant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1988”) bearing No.206/2017 was registered against the petitioner and on this count alone, the order impugned has been passed without conducting any enquiry. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and as per Clause 6 & 7 of the contract, if any [2025:RJ-JP:14854] (2 of 3) [CW-9082/2018] misconduct on the part of the petitioner is proved after an enquiry then the respondents can terminate his services, but in the instant case without following the aforesaid procedure, the order impugned has been passed. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was caught red-handed while taking bribe, therefore, an FIR under the provisions of Act of 1988 was lodged against him and prosecution sanction was issued by the competent authority. Learned counsel submits that, for the aforesaid misconduct of the petitioner, his services have been terminated vide order dated 22.08.2017. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that contractual appointment was provided to the petitioner on the post of Junior Technical Assistant for a particular term, which was extended from time to time. This fact is also not in dispute that as per Clause 6 of the contract, if any misconduct is found on the part of the petitioner and the same is proved after enquiry, then certainly his services can be terminated. No separate mechanism has been provided under the contract for terminating the services of any person, only on the ground of registration of criminal case against him, and also till date the petitioner has not been convicted for the same. Hence, under these circumstances, the respondents were supposed to [2025:RJ-JP:14854] (3 of 3) [CW-9082/2018] comply with the terms and conditions as mentioned in Clause 6 & 7 in its letter and spirit. On this count alone, the impugned order dated 22.08.2017 is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 22.08.2017 stands quashed and set-aside. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. 7. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service forthwith. Needless to observe that the respondents would conduct enquiry against the petitioner in terms of Clause 6 of the contract and pass necessary orders after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/161