VIKRAM BAKSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made in this writ petition to the office order of the respondents issued by the Executive Director of the respondent dated 9/6/1998 terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect.

(2.) . Pursuance to a selection process the petitioner was appointed as a Manager in the respondent Organisation by letter dated 2/4/1997. The said order was issued under the signature of the Executive Director of the respondent. The terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner were stipulated in the Memorandum dated 2/4/1997. By the aforesaid memorandum dated 2/4/1997 an offer of appointment was made to the petitioner for appointment to the post of Manager in National Centre for Trade Information (hereinafter referred to as NCTI for short). It was stipulated therein that the petitioner would be on probation for a period of one year from the date of appointment and based on his performance and/or conduct he would be considered for confirmation in the company. It was also stipulated therein that the period of probation could be extended at the discretion of the competent authority, and that during the period of probation his services could be terminated without assigning any reason subject to one months' notice or pay and allowances thereof for the like period. The aforesaid offer was accepted by the petitioner and the appointment order was issued wherein it was stated that he was appointed on the terms and conditions stipulated in the said memorandum dated 2/4/1997.

(3.) . After joining duties the petitioner served with the respondent during the course of which certain lapses on his part were brought to his notice by the respondents. Even warning letters and show cause notices were issued to the petitioner for various lapses on his part. The respondent, by the aforesaid office order dated 9/6/1998 terminated the services of the petitioner with immediate effect further mentioning in the said office order that he shall be paid one months' pay and allowances in lieu of one months' notice as provided in clause 2 of his letter of appointment subject however, to settlement of dues, if any. The aforesaid order of termination is challenged in this petition mainly on two counts. The first limb of argument is that the Executive Director was not the appointing authority of the petitioner and therefore, he had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and as such the impugned order is bad and illegal whereas the second limb of argument was that on expiry of a period of one year from the date of his appointment the petitioner should be deemed to have been confirmed in the post of Manager and therefore, his services could not have been terminated in the manner it had been done.