Contractual service may be terminated when misconduct is established after an adequate opportunity to respond.

The applicant was appointed as Assistant Research Officer (Medical) at NIREH on a contractual basis for three years or until further orders.

Following a newspaper report alleging that he practised privately during office hours, the respondents sought his explanation, issued a charge memorandum, and conducted an inquiry. The inquiry found the charge proved, and the respondents terminated his contractual engagement after one month’s notice.

His subsequent representations and appeal were rejected. He sought quashing of the termination and regularisation on the same terms as two other employees.

The Tribunal noted that the appointment was contractual and subject to the terms of the appointment order.

1. Whether the termination of the applicant’s contractual services was liable to be set aside for want of notice, opportunity to defend, or other procedural defect

2. Whether the applicant had an enforceable right to continue in service or to be regularised on the basis that other employees had been regularised

The Tribunal relied on the terms of the applicant’s appointment letter, particularly Clause 2(2), which permitted termination if the work was unsatisfactory and required at least one month’s clear notice before resignation or relinquishment of the post.

It also applied the general principle that a Tribunal does not ordinarily sit in appeal over findings of misconduct following a proper inquiry, unless the findings are perverse or the proceedings violate the principles of natural justice.

No specific statute or judicial precedent was identified in the order.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s appointment was purely contractual and did not confer a substantive or permanent right to continue in service.

It accepted that an inquiry had been conducted into the allegation of private practice during duty hours and that the applicant had an opportunity to present his defence.

As no violation of natural justice or other ground for intervention was demonstrated, and the termination was consistent with the appointment terms and followed one month’s notice, the Tribunal declined to interfere.

It also treated the regularisation of the other employees as unrelated to the action taken against the applicant.

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.