JUDGMENT : ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Konwar, learned standing counsel for the respondents in the P&RD and Mr. C.S. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 being the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. 2. The petitioner was appointed as per the order of contractual engagement of Accredited Engineer as per the order of the Project Director, District Rural Development Authority (DRDA), Barpeta district. The order of appointment provides that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis under the administrative control of DRDA from the date of joining or date of signing the terms of contractual engagement, whichever is later up to 30.10.2010 to perform the job of Accredited Engineer (Civil), subject to execution of terms of contractual engagement. 3. Clause 2 of the terms of engagement provides that the engagement shall be purely on contract basis for the period mentioned in the order of contractual engagement, unless terminated earlier and the services of the contractual staff shall stand automatically terminated on the expiry of the contract period unless terminated earlier without any necessity of the agency giving notice to the contractual staff. 4. Although the terms of the contractual engagement does not provide for any extension of the period of the term, but the fact remains that although the engagement of the petitioner was up to 30.10.2010, he was continued to be engaged on his contractual term. The Project Director, DRDA had also issued an experience certificate dated 20.03.2022 certifying that the petitioner has been working as an Accredited Engineer under the Mandia Development Block from 01.07.2010 to 20.03.2022 i.e. the date on which the certificate was issued. 5. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties even thereafter till his services were terminated by the order dated 11.04.2022 of the Commissioner, P&RD, Assam. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is instituted. 6. A reading of the order of termination dated 11.04.2022 makes it discernible that there was an enquiry by the Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell in Case No. 02/2021 u/s 120(B)/406/49/420/468/471 of the IPC read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 in connection with an alleged misappropriation of Government fund without execution of work in respect of 14 numbers of roads under the MLALAD Scheme under the Mandia Development Block. The order also states that during the police investigation, the petitioner was found involved in cheating, forgery and misappropriation of Government fund and accordingly was arrested and forwarded to judicial custody on 21.03.2022. Accordingly, by invoking clause 9 of the contract agreement of the contractual employee, the Commissioner, P&RD, Assam in exercise of the right to terminate the contractual agreement upon being not found satisfactory or upon being found of any declaration or information furnished by the petitioner to be false or wilful suppression etc., had terminated the services of the petitioner by providing for payment of one month salary in lieu of notice. 7. A reading of the order of termination dated 11.04.2022 makes it discernible that it is a termination of the engagement of the contractual employee upon the assumption of the existence of certain factual allegations against the petitioner of cheating, forgery and misappropriation of Government fund etc. A reading of the order of appointment dated 01.07.2010 makes it discernible that the petitioner was holding a civil post under the State although the nature of engagement may be contractual in nature. As the petitioner has been terminated on the allegation of cheating, forgery and misappropriation of Government fund, which would have to be accepted to be punitive in nature, a question would arise as to why the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India would not be applicable in the present case. 8. Mr. K. Konwar, learned standing counsel for the respondents in the P&RD submits that the period of contract of the petitioner was over on 30.10.2010 and therefore it is a case of termination simpliciter. 9. Had the said argument being raised immediately after 30.10.2010, may be we would have no reason not to accept the same. But the fact remains is that the petitioner continued up to the date of his termination i.e. on 11.04.2022. There is a certificate by the Project Director that he was continuously in service meaning thereby that although there was no clause for extension in the terms and conditions of the contract, but there is a deem extension by the respondent authorities accepting the service of the petitioner and also paying his salary and allowances as admissible under the law up to the date of termination. 10. 10. From such point of view, the submission that it is a termination simpliciter would have to be unacceptable in the facts of the present case. But at the same time, we also take note that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious in nature which may warrant any kind of action against him under the law that may be admissible. But at the same time, we cannot be oblivious to the requirement of Article 311 of the Constitution of India which provides that in the event a person holding a civil post is subjected to any dismissal, removal or termination, an opportunity of hearing is a requirement of the law. 11. Considering the matter in its entirety, we direct the respondents in the P&RD to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner on the allegation of cheating, forgery and misappropriation of Government fund that have been made against him and based upon the reply that the petitioner may give, the respondents may pass an appropriate order as regards the desirability to continue the petitioner in his contractual engagement, subject to any order that may be passed by the respondents by invoking the provisions of the first and the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Considering the seriousness of the allegation against the petitioner, we further provide that till such opportunity is given or the authorities invoke either of the two provisos to Article 311 (2) and the consequential order is passed, the petitioner be deemed to be under suspension and the order that may be passed by the respondent authorities shall prevail between the parties. The show cause notice be given to the petitioner at the earliest so that the matter can be given its final consideration by the respondents. 12. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.