Expiry of Contractual Tenure Not Punitive Despite Allegations if Termination Order is Ex Facie Non-Stigmatic

The appellant was appointed as a Finance & Accounts Officer on a contractual basis in 2002 under the Axom Sarba Siksha Abhiyan Mission

His last written agreement expired on November 30, 2022, though he continued to serve thereafter

In May 2023, following an FIR alleging financial misappropriation, the appellant was released on bail

After being issued a show-cause notice regarding missing files, the appellant was released from service via an order dated June 19, 2023, on the ground that his contract had expired by efflux of time

The appellant challenged this before a Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition, holding the release order was non-stigmatic

1. Whether the order of release, though innocuous in form, was in substance a punitive termination (foundation vs. motive) requiring a departmental inquiry

2. Whether a contractual employee has a vested right to seek renewal or reinstatement after the expiry of the contractual tenure

The court applied the principle that contractual employees do not hold civil posts and their rights are governed strictly by the terms of the agreement

It relied on the doctrine of "Motive vs. Foundation," where an action is innocuous if misconduct is merely the background (motive) but is punitive if misconduct is the substantive basis (foundation) for the order

Judicial review in contractual matters is limited to examining illegality, arbitrariness, or malafides, and courts cannot compel the renewal of a contract contrary to expressed terms

The Court reasoned that the appellant's service ended by efflux of time on November 30, 2022, and his continued service created no vested right to renewal

Upon reviewing the release order, the Court found it "ex facie innocuous" as it did not mention the FIR, misappropriation allegations, or any findings of misconduct

The Court distinguished between "motive" and "foundation," concluding that while the criminal case might have been the background (motive), the legal "foundation" of the release was the expiry of the contract

Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the Service Regulations of 2003 required an inquiry, noting those regulations applied to discharge for "unsatisfactory performance" during a contract, not to release upon natural expiry

It held that reinstatement after the expiry of a contractual tenure is legally impermissible

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, with a clarification that this judgment would not influence the pending criminal proceedings