DELHI STOCK EXCHANGE Vs. K C SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Several questions of importance are involved in this Letters Patent Appeal which arise out of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court dated 7/07/1999 wherein the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein questioning termination of his services has been allowed. FACTS:

(2.) . The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The first respondent was appointed as General Manager of the appellant herein on or about 5/05/1992. His services were confirmed on 13/11/1993. The terms and conditions of service contained a provision whereby services could be terminated by either of the parties upon giving three months' notice or salary in lien thereof. The writ petitioner respondent contended that he had been satisfactorily and diligently performing his duties wherefor he received appreciations and rewards. It has been contended that he being an honest and upright person, took stern decisions by imposing heavy penalties on erring companies and brokers of the appellant Exchange and had also issued several notices of inspection to the brokers. On 9/06/1995, a murderous assault was engineered by one of the brokers in view of the action against them. Allegedly, an information to the press relating thereto had been issued, which, according to the respondent, was made by the police authorities and not by him.

(3.) . Further contention of the writ petitioner/respondent is that Executive Director of the appellant vacated his office on 25/10/1995 whereafter mala fide action was started being taken against him. Inspection Notices had been issued by him to various brokers including President, Vice President and Senior Directors of Delhi Stock Exchange on 22/05/1996. His services had been terminated on the very next day viz. 23/05/1996 without assigning any reason whatsoever. The contention of the respondent in the writ petition was that such purported termination of notice relying on or on the basis of clause 4 a fore-mentioned, was unconstitutional having regard to the decision of the apex court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. B.N. Ganguli & Ann, AIR 1986 SC 1571 and Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 101.