S. K. PATTANAYAK Vs. MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby quashing the office order dated 26.07.2018 issued by the respondent no.4- Corporation, whereby the services of the petitioner as Managing Director of respondent no.4 has been terminated forthwith. He further seeks direction thereby quashing the recommendation dated 26.07.2018 issued by respondent no.1 recommending the termination of the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he joined as Managing Director of respondent no.4-Corporation on 09.03.2017 as per respondent no.1's letter dated 16.02.2017. The petitioner was appointed to the post with sanction of the Hon'ble President of India. The appointment of the petitioner was on certain terms and conditions which were contained/detailed in letter dated 16.05.2017. The impugned order of termination has been passed without notice to the petitioner and is violative of the terms of the appointment.

(3.) As per clause 1.1, the period for his appointment will be for five years w.e.f. 09.03.2017 in the first instance or till the date of superannuation or until further orders, whichever event occurs earlier and in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 as amended. The appointment may, however, be terminated even during this period by either side on three months' notice or on payment of three months' salary in lieu thereof. However, while issuing the termination letter, neither notice nor salary in lieu thereof has been given to the petitioner. Thus, the terms of appointment has clearly been violated. Clause 1.15 of the terms of appointment stipulated that the petitioner would be governed by the provisions of the IRFC (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules which contain detailed provisions governing the manner, mode and methodology of conduct of inquiries etc. against the employees of respondent no.4.