SOMNATH SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Orissa High Court dated March 11, 1964 in OJC No. 205 of 1963.

(2.) The appellant was appointed as Welfare Officer by the Indian Aluminium Co., Ltd., Calcutta, respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the Company) at its Hirakud factory in its personnel department with effect from July 16, 1956. By its letter elated January 31, 1959 the Company informed the Labour Commissioner, Orissa that the appellant was a Welfare Officer. On March 11, 1960 the appellant was dismissed by the Companys letter of the same date. It was to the following effect: Your services are hereby terminated with effect from March 11, 1960 on the following grounds: In a Conference held in writers Office on the afternoon of March 10, 1960 in which our Personnel Manager Mr. P.K. Krishna Pillai, Production Manager, Mr. S.S. Narayan, Personnel Superintendent Mr. S. Misra, yourself and the writer were present, you have stated:

(3.) The appellant took the matter in appeal to the State Government but the appeal was dismissed by the Order of the State Government dated January 2, 1962. The appellant thereafter moved the Orissa High Court for the grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the appellate order of the State Government dated January 2, 1962 and the order of dismissal made by respondent No. 4 dated March 11, 1960. The application was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated March 11, 1964. The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether the order of dismissal dated March 11, 1960 was illegal because no notice was given to the appellant for his alleged misconduct and no inquiry was held by respondent No. 4 into the alleged misconduct before the order of dismissal was made. It was contended for the appellant that there was a violation of principle of natural justice and the order of dismissal was defective as no notice of the allegation was given to the appellant and no enquiry was held by respondent No. 4. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. The order of dismissal was made by respondent No. 4 not because of any imputation of misconduct but in terms of the contract of service incorporated in the letter of respondent No. 4 dated June 25, 1956 which states: We have the pleasure in offering you a position in our Hirakud project for a trial period of six months commencing from July 16, 1956. You will be confirmed in the post on your satisfactory completion of the probationary period. ********** You will be subject to the staff rules fixed or modified from time to time and after confirmation of your appointment you will also be entitled to the privilege of the Company as fixed or modified from time to time. You will undertake not to divulge any information concerning the Company or its activities and to treat as Confidential all processes, activities, figures or any other information that may become known to you in the course of your duties. Infringement of this rule or any other misconduct, negligence or disobedience of your superiors will make you liable to instant and summary dismissal without notice or salary in lieu of notice. The Company will have the right to dispense with your services at any time without assigning any reason on giving you one calendar months notice dating from the time of such notice or alternatively, salary in lieu of notice. This clause in no way affects the Companys rights to determine your engagement summarily as provided above for the infringement of certain rules, misconduct, negligence of orders of your superiOrs.