JAGAT PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No. 2, India tourism Development Corporation (for short (I. T. D. C.), dated 11th December, 1982, terminating the services of the petitioner in pursuance of a directive of the Government under article 96 of the articles of association of india Tourism Development Corporation limited.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. In 1947, the petitioner joined as a receptionist in Government of India Hotels under the Directorate of Estates, Ministry of works, Mines and Power, and promoted as assistant Manager, Hotel Janpath, in 1959. In 1964, Government of India created Janpath hotels Limited and the petitioner's services were loaned to Janpath Hotels as manager. In 1969, he was appointed Deputy Manager, ashoka Hotels Limited. In 1970, a decision was taken by the Government to merge Janpath hotels Limited and Ashoka Hotels Limited and thus the petitioner became a permanent employee of I. T. D. C. Thereafter, he continued to work with various hotels. During this period, he had successfully passed through certain competitions and was sent abroad for training. In 1976, the petitioner was appointed General manager, I. T. D. C. Due to certain differences, on 5th September, 1977, he tendered his resignation effective from 4th December, 1977. However, on 7th September, 1977, he withdrew his resignation. The question of his right to withdraw the resignation during the notice period was a subject-matter of controversy for some time but, ultimately, on 5th August, 1980, the petitioner was reinstated as General manager (Hotels) by treating the period between the date of his resignation till the date of his re-joining as leave due/leave extraordinary. On 19th August, 1980, a new chairman-cum-Managing Director of the i. T. D. C. was appointed. Certain allegations of inefficiency were made against the petitioner and, therefore, on 22nd August, 1982, the secretary, Ministry of Tourism, verbally asked the petitioner to proceed on leave and on 21st september, 1982, the petitioner was transferred to Madras with immediate effect and on 22nd september, 1982, he was relieved of his duties at Headquarters, New Delhi. The petitioner took charge at Madras on 4th October, 1982, and on 12th December, 1982, the impugned order of termination was passed.

(3.) THOUGH in the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of termination on several grounds and even certain allegations of mala fides are made, at the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court, for the sake of brevity limited his challenge and assailed the impugned order as being in breach and disregard of elementary rules of natural justice and fair play. It was contended by learned counsel that the petitioner's relation-ship with I. T. D. C. was one of status and not of contract and respondent No. 2 being a State within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution of India could not dispense with the services of the petitioner by giving a simple notice. It was further submitted that the impugned order of termination could not have been passed because the Government, while exercising power under article 96 of the articles of association of India Tourism Development corporation Limited, could not issue such a directive because under this article the government could issue directive only related to audit. However, assuming if this article did give such a power then the article would be ultra vires articles 14,16 and 19 of the Constitution of india. Learned counsel referred to Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib, (1981-I-LLJ-103 at P. 113)Som Prakash Rekhi Vs. Union of India, (1981-1-LLJ-79 at pp 91-93 and 97) Ramana Dayaram shetty V. International Airport Authority of india, (1979-II-LLJ-217) Sukhdev Singh V. Bhagat Ram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1974-1-LLJ-399) and U. P. Warehousing Corporation V. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee (1980-I-LLJ-222) in support of his contention that I. T. D. C. is a state within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution of India and West Bengal State electricity Board Vs. Desh Bandhu Ghosh, (1985-I-LLJ-373) Workmen of Hindustan steel Limited V. Hindustan Steel Limited, (1985-I-LLJ-267) and Central Inland Water transport Corporation V. B. N. Ganguly, (1986-II-LLJ-171) in support of his contention that a provision which gives arbitrary and unguided power to terminate the services of a permanent employee is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. It was further submitted that in view of the background the impugned order of termination is in effect an order of dismissal/removal from service and thus since it was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner it is against the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anoop jaiswal V. Government of India, (1984-I-LLJ337), in support of this contention.