JUDGMENT : K. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The government of Assam has floated a scheme under name Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners Scheme (PIFS) for detecting and preventing the illegal infiltration of foreigners into the country. For implementing the scheme several hierarchical posts were created. Posts of sub-inspector were also created. Petitioner was appointed as Havildar in the year 1989 and when the posts of sub-inspector were notified petitioner applied and got appointed as sub-inspector in the year 1994. There was a news report against the petitioner in The Dainik Purvoday (a local daily) that on 23.10.2006 petitioner visited the pharmacy-cum-residence of one Bijay Agarwala, who happens to be a news-reporter of The Dainik Purvoday based at Goreswar. Petitioner was alleged to be under the influence of liquor and misbehaved with the said Mr. Bijay Agarwala and abused him in filthy language. It is alleged that when the people gathered there tried to get hold of him to send him for medical examination he managed to escape. Show-cause notice was issued to him giving 3 days' notice to explain the allegations against him. 2. The petitioner in para 2 of his explanation has made the following averments. "Sir, I never drunk then and create no nuisances there. The proprietor of the Pharmacy actually is engaged in different kinds of nefatious activities in Pharmacy. Just to save himself from it and to hide his this type of unlawful and nefarious activities, he has taken the help of this mischievous propaganda against me. The alleged propaganda is totally false, fabricated and concocted story to demorilise the Police force before the general public". 3. In the explanation the petitioner further denies the fact that he was in a drunken state and he never created any nuisance. The proprietor of the pharmacy was engaged in nefarious activities and "just to save himself from it and to hide his this type of unlawful and nefarious activities he has taken the help of this mischievous propaganda against me and the alleged propaganda is totally false, fabricated and concocted story to demoralize the police force before the general public". 4. The Additional Director-General of Police has passed the following order. "Perused the explanation of delinquent Insp(B) EX-S Rabindra Kr. Ray, enquiry report of Superintendent of Police, Baska district and order of the Police HQ, Assam placing him (the delinquent Insp.(B) EX-S), under suspension. 4. The Additional Director-General of Police has passed the following order. "Perused the explanation of delinquent Insp(B) EX-S Rabindra Kr. Ray, enquiry report of Superintendent of Police, Baska district and order of the Police HQ, Assam placing him (the delinquent Insp.(B) EX-S), under suspension. The delinquent is not a regular Govt.'s employee but on contractual service for one year w.e.f. 27/07/06 under P.L.F. Scheme against one of the posts sanctioned by Govt. of India on year to year basis for ex-servicemen. His assigned duty as Insp(B) EX-S was detection and deportation of illegal migrants through due process of law and as such he is not required to undertake enquiry/investigation of any other crime on his own volition. In his explanation he had stated that on 23/10/06 he had gone to a pharmacy at Goreswar to purchase medicine and had asked owner of the pharmacy regarding his involvement in some nefarious activities, which led to unsavoury incident. This shows that he had been to the pharmacy with mala fide intention as it was beyond scope of his assigned duty to conduct enquiry about any criminal act. The Superintendent of Police Baska, in his report has clearly brought out involvement of delinquent Insp(B) Ex-S Ray in the unsavoury incident unbecoming of a Police officer following which P.H.Q. has ordered the suspension of delinquent Insp(B), EX-S Rabindra Kumar Ray. It seems that PHH.Q has ordered suspension from service of delinquent Insp(B) EX-S Ray on the premise that he was a regular Govt.'s servant. As per terms and conditions of contractual service of the delinquent Insp(B) EX-S Ray, he is liable to be discharged from contractual service if he is found deficient in his performance and otherwise. In view of the involvement of delinquent Insp(B) EX-S Rabindra Kr. Ray in undesirable activity unbecoming of a Police officer, he is discharged from contractual service with immediate effect. All concerned including Police HQ, Assam be informed accordingly". 5. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner has filed this petition. 6. Sri D. Choudhury appearing for the petitioner has urged the following points to assail the order of termination as being illegal. i) Petitioner though engaged on contractual basis under the Scheme, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd Abdul Kadir & Anr. Vs. Director General of Police Assam & Ors. 6. Sri D. Choudhury appearing for the petitioner has urged the following points to assail the order of termination as being illegal. i) Petitioner though engaged on contractual basis under the Scheme, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd Abdul Kadir & Anr. Vs. Director General of Police Assam & Ors. [ (2009) 6 SCC 611 ] wherein it is held that even if any ad hoc appointment made under the Scheme person appointed cannot be removed and his services have to be continued until completion of the Scheme. ii) The decision of this Court in Babul Das Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2004 (2) GLT 259 is relied on to contend that person appointed on contractual basis also cannot be arbitrarily terminated without following the rules of natural justice. iii) The decision of the Supreme Court in Dipti Prakash Banernee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & Ors. [ (1999) 3 SCC 60 ] is relied on to contend that any termination which attaches stigma cannot be made without holding any enquiry and giving an opportunity to the concerned person. iv) The order of termination discloses that reports were collected from the Superintendent of Police, Baska district. Petitioner has not been given any opportunity to meet the case made out in the report. The material is collected behind the back of the petitioner and the said material could not have been relied on for termination without proper opportunity to the petitioner. v) The disciplinary authority has not held any enquiry. The pivotal witness Mr. Bijay Agarwala is not examined and no opportunity to cross-examine is given to the petitioner. Petitioner has stoutly denied that he was drunk and he misbehaved. The said Mr. Bijay Agarwala being a news-reporter has got a false report published against the petitioner. 7. The counsel for the petitioner in reiteration of his submission has stated that the need of holding enquiry and compliance of the rules of natural justice equally applies even to contractual employments. The termination attaches stigma. In the present case there is no compliance of the rules of natural justice. Show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted his explanation. However no enquiry is held by examining the concerned witnesses and no opportunity was given to cross-examine and to prove his defence. The termination attaches stigma. In the present case there is no compliance of the rules of natural justice. Show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted his explanation. However no enquiry is held by examining the concerned witnesses and no opportunity was given to cross-examine and to prove his defence. In that view of the matter the order of termination is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 8. The govt. advocate per contra has submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra) has no application because it was a case where a probationer in a statutory body and it is not a contractual employment. With regard to the merits of the case it has been submitted that there has been substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner has been given the show-cause notice and he has given the reply. In the reply petitioner had substantially admitted to his misconduct. When there is an admission to certain material incriminating facts on the part of the petitioner, the question of any further enquiry was not necessary and needed. Therefore on the basis of such admissions the order of termination made is justified in law. 9. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another (supra) in para 17 makes the following observations. "17. When the ad hoc appointment is under a scheme and is in accordance with the selection process prescribed by the scheme, there is no reason why those appointed under the scheme should not be continued as long as the scheme continues. Ad hoc appointments under schemes are normally coterminus with the scheme (subject of course to earlier termination either on medical or disciplinary grounds, or for unsatisfactory service or on attainment of normal age of retirement). Irrespective of the length of their ad hoc service or the scheme, they will not be entitled to regularization nor to the security of tenure and service benefits available to the regular employees. In this background, particularly in view of the continuing Scheme, the ex-serviceman employed after undergoing the selection process, need not be subjected to the agony, anxiety, humiliation and vicissitudes of annual termination and re-engagement, merely because their appointment is termed as ad hoc appointments". 10. In this background, particularly in view of the continuing Scheme, the ex-serviceman employed after undergoing the selection process, need not be subjected to the agony, anxiety, humiliation and vicissitudes of annual termination and re-engagement, merely because their appointment is termed as ad hoc appointments". 10. It becomes explicit from the said observations that a person appointed on an ad hoc basis under a scheme can be terminated either on medical or disciplinary ground or for unsatisfactory services or on attainment of the normal age of retirement. In the present case there is an allegation of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner was to the effect that under drunken influence he misbehaved with a pharmacist who also happens to be a news-reporter of a local daily and abused him and attributed that he is indulging in nefarious activities of woman trafficking. Petitioner has submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice. In para 2 of the defence statement submitted by the petitioner which was extracted above (supra) clearly discloses that he has substantially admitted to the incident. However, he tries to deny that he was drunk and it was the pharmacist who was guilty of abusing him. Petitioner states that with regard to price of a drug there was exchange of words and he also told that the pharmacist is indulging in nefarious activities and he questioned about his conduct in respect of the said allegation and that the pharmacist became furious and used unparliamentarily words against him and in order to save himself from further enquiry into the matter he has made this mischievous propaganda and made false allegations against him. 11. The admitted facts clearly disclose that if really the petitioner had bona fide need in purchase of medicine there would have been no occasion for any unsavoury incident. Whether or not the petitioner is drunk, if the pharmacist was collecting higher price for the medicine then it was expected of the petitioner to have complained the matter to the drug inspector to take necessary action under the law. As an officer of police under the PIF Scheme it was not his duty and jurisdiction to make enquiries with the public regarding woman trafficking and that was not an occasion at all for the petitioner to have made such enquiries. As an officer of police under the PIF Scheme it was not his duty and jurisdiction to make enquiries with the public regarding woman trafficking and that was not an occasion at all for the petitioner to have made such enquiries. The disciplinary authority while passing the termination order has rightly found that it was beyond the scope of his assigned duty to conduct enquiry of any criminal act. The petitioner if had any credible information he could have informed the local police for taking necessary action against the pharmacist. In the face of admission of the material facts of the incident the factum of denial on the part of the petitioner appears to be farce and untenable. The said material clearly suggests an inference of the misbehavior on the part of the petitioner. 12. The decision of this Court in Babul Das (supra) case has no application to the facts of the case. In the said case the police officer under the PIF Scheme was alleged that he remained unauthorisedly absent. The said officer gave an explanation that he was attending to official duty as well. Therefore he should not be present. The authorities concerned without giving any formal opportunity of show cause and knowing his explanation has passed an order of termination. In that context this Court held that it was necessary that the principles of natural justice should have been followed to know the truth of the defence pleaded by the official. In view of the above discussions it becomes explicit that the termination of the petitioner was not an arbitrary act without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he did submit his explanation. Contents of the explanation fully justify the order of termination. It is to be seen that the nature of enquiry that is required to be done in respect of civil servants and Article 311 of the Constitution need not necessarily be adhered to the contractual employees. However the contractual employees are not governed by service rules; they are governed by the terms of the appointment order. It is to be seen that the nature of enquiry that is required to be done in respect of civil servants and Article 311 of the Constitution need not necessarily be adhered to the contractual employees. However the contractual employees are not governed by service rules; they are governed by the terms of the appointment order. However in order to obviate the arbitrary terminations if any employee under the Scheme got to be terminated on the ground of misconduct a formality of opportunity should be given to the employee to know the nature of misconduct and considering his explanation a summary enquiry can be held. However a full-fledged enquiry contemplated in respect of civil servants need not apply in holding such enquiry; only the spirit of principles of naturals has to be complied. In this case there has been substantial compliance of principles of natural justice and that petitioner has been notified the nature of misconduct and considering his explanation and other reports he has been arbitrarily terminated. There does not appear to be any arbitrariness or illegality on the part of the disciplinary authority. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.