engagement was purely contractual. Thus, he did not enjoy the protection afforded to the regular employees by the statutory service rules. The termination of the petitioner is not stigmatic. It does not make reference to his conduct, and does not state that his services were terminated on account of any misconduct. The respondents were not obliged to hold the full-fledged formal enquiry by issuing a charge-sheet; calling for a reply of the petitioner; recording detailed evidence of the departmental witnesses and the defence witnesses, and; thereafter returning a finding of guilt against the petitioner. The enquiry report shows that the same also examined the counter allegation of the petitioner made by him in his reply dated 13.07.2014 against the Principal – which was his defence to the allegations made against him. Pertinently, even though the petitioner claimed that the Principal had demanded money from him on 09.07.2014, he did not make any such complaint against the Principal either on 09.07.2014, or 10.7.2014, or even on 11.07.2014. Only after he had been served with a show cause notice of 11.07.2014, he, for the first time, made counter allegations in his reply dated 13.07.2014. Even before the enquiry committee he did not lead any evidence in support of the said allegation. The named witnesses examined by the Committee did state that the petitioner was a habitual chain smoker. He was also habituated to drinking.
